Basdeo Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2782 of 2026 ====================================================== Basdeo Chaudhary son of Shiv Lal Chaudhary, Resident of village- Hakim Tola, Sauren, District-Gopalganj, Pin Code-841438. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gopalganj. 4.
The Additional Collector, Gopalganj.
5.
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathwa, Dist- Gopalganj. 6.
The Circle Officer, Bihta, Hathwa, District- Gopalganj. 7.
The Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 8.
The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Bihar, Patna.
9.
The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Gopalganj.
10.
The Development Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Gopalganj.
11.
The Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Mill Corporation, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr.Kumar Gaurav, Advocate Ms.Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate Mr.Shashank Kashyap, Advocate For Sugar Corporation :
Mr.Gyan Shankar, Advocate Ms.Ankita Roy, Advocate For BIADA :
Mr.Vagisha Pragya, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Amit Bhushan, AC to GP 17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey along with Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Sheshadri Kumari and Mr. Shashank Kashyap, learned counsels for the petitioner; Mr. Gyan Shankar along with Ms. Ankita Roy, learned counsels for the Sugar
2/4 Corporation; Ms. Vagisha Pragya, learned counsel for the BIADA and Mr. Amit Bhushan, learned AC to GP 17 for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:- "(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to produce records of so called land acquisition case, in which land of petitioner has been acquired and if not so then they may be directed to initiate land acquisition proceeding under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the disputed land and and to pay adequate compensation to petitioners for their raiyati lands bearing Tauzi No. 3296, Thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135/174, Plot No. 332, having its area 9 Katha 71⁄2 Dhur, situated at Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which Jamabandi No. 202 running in the name of the petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly respondents second set, to not take forceful possession, or making any type of construction over the raiyati/purchased land of petitioner bearing Tauzi No. 3296, Thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135/174, Plot No. 332, having its area 9 Katha 71⁄2 Dhurs, situated at Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which Jamabandi No. 202 is running in the name of the petitioner.
3/4
3. Considering the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition, as well as, the pleadings supported by the documents brought on record, the petitioner claims title and ownership over the land appertaining to Tauzi No. 3296, Thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135/174, Plot No. 332, total area measuring 9 Kathas and 71⁄2 Dhurs, situated at Mauza Badarjim, Anchal Hathua, Jamabandi No. 202.
4. From the averments made in the writ petition, it can not be ascertained, as to, when the aforesaid land was acquired by the State Government for S.K. Distillery, which has subsequently gone in the possession of BIADA pursuant to a lawful order of transfer by the State Government. It further appears from paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition that the land has allegedly been mutated in favour of BIADA without reference to any supporting acquisition records.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner, if so advised, may avail appropriate remedy before the District Magistratecum-Collector, Gopalganj.
6. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gopalganj, is directed to call for the relevant revenue records and the concerned revenue officer in respect of the land as described in the writ petition to verify, whether any acquisition proceeding
4/4 was initiated in respect of the piece of land, which the petitioner claims belong to him and he is entitled for compensation.
7. With the above observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) chn/- U