Shree Ram Mallah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2929 of 2026 ====================================================== Shree Ram Mallah Son of Baleshwar Mallah, Resident of Village- Badarjimi, Police Station- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Collector, Gopalganj.
3.
The Additional Collector, Gopalganj.
4.
The Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.
The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Bihar, Patna.
6.
The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Patna.
7.
The Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Mill Corporation, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Standing Counsel (23) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-06-2026 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar and Mr. Ajay Mishra for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar representing the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (henceforth for short 'the BIADA') and Mr. Gyan Shankar representing the Sugar Mill Corporation as also learned State counsel.
2. The present petition has been preferred for: (I) Release of the lands of the petitioner from the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (herein after referred to in short as BIADA), as the lands in question belonging to
2/4 the petitioner were never acquired by the State of BIADA/Concerned Respondents in terms of Section 4A and 9 of the BIADA Act, 1974 and have illegally been transferred in favour of the BIADA by a mere Notification without giving proper notice (without details of the controversy) to the petitioner and without considering his contentions on the point of law and facts and as also without following the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act 2013 and for commanding the Respondents pay to the compensation in accordance with the law, if lands of the petitioner is required by the State. (II) Setting consequential aside all the proceedings/order(s) to the extent to which it declares the petitioner's land in AnchalHathua, Mauza-Badarjimi Khata No, 188, Khesra-278, Jamabandi no. 78 area- 34 decimals respectively to be incorporated in the land of BIADA as Industrial Area i.e. land of S.K.G Distillery along with 105.29 acres of land without service of proper notice.
3/4 III) Holding and declaring that the concerned respondents were not authorised under any Act to transfer the raiyati lands of the present petitioner in favour of the BIADA, especially without initiating any proceedings for transfer in favour of BIADA.
IV) Restraining the respondent authorities from evicting the petitioner from his raiyati lands in question, as the petitioner has been in complete possession of the same, but the concerned Respondents are making physical changes to the property by carrying out construction work over the said property.
V) Granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the appropriate authority/respondents for the redressal of the grievance so that it is taken to its logical conclusion.
4. The respondents appearing in the present case have no objection to it.
5. In that background, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in next four
4/4 weeks so that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J) sanny/- U