Lal Bahadur Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3347 of 2026 ====================================================== 1.

Lal Bahadur Chaudhary son of Hajari Prasad Yadav, Resident of VillageJigna Rajghat, Jigna Jagarnath, District- Gopalganj, Pin Code-841438. 2.

Sanjay Kumar Yadav, son of Hajari Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Jigna Rajghat, Jigna Jagarnath, 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, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Adv.

Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anirban Kundu, SC- 24 For BIADA :

Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknari, Adv.

For Bihar State Sugar :

Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Mr. Anirban Kundu for the State and Ms. Vagisha Pragya for 'the BIADA'.

2/5

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

For issuance of 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, Resettlement Act. 2013 for acquisition of the disputed land and pay adequate compensation to petitioners for their raiyati lands bearing Tauzi No.3296, Thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135, Plot No.

359 having its area 9 katha, Situated at Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which Online Jamabandi No. 197122100076830, 197122100076831 and 197122100076830 are running in the name of petitioner's father. (ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly respondents 2nd set to not take force full possession or making any type of construction over the raiyati/purchased land of petitioner bearing Tauzi No.3296, Thana No. 1060, Khata No.

135, Plot No. 359 having its area 9 katha, Situated at Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal

3/5 Hathua, for which Online Jamabandi No.

197122100076830, 197122100076831 and 197122100076830 are running in the name of petitioner's father.

(iii) For any other writ/writs, order/orders for which petitioner deemed entitled to.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for 'the BIADA' has taken this Court to a case of Basdeo Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2782 of 2026) disposed of on 27.02.2026 which is exactly the same prayer and the Co-ordinate Bench passed the following order:

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

4/5 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 Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gopalganj.

6. The District Magistrate-cumCollector, 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 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.

4. This Court has gone through the prayer of the Basdeo Chaudhary (supra) and is of the opinion that the submission put forward by the learned counsel for 'the BIADA' is correct. In that background, following the order passed in the aforesaid case, the same order is being passed in the present case.

5. Let the petitioner appear before the District

5/5 Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gopalganj in next eight weeks and if he prefers petition, the same shall be taken up/ relevant parties be noticed and the matter has to be taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.

6. Needless to add, if the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, the process has to be taken in accordance with law for payment.

7. Any development that takes place in between shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U