Ram Ji Puri v. The National Highway Authority Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1028 of 2026 ====================================================== Ram Ji Puri Son of Late Bhaskar Puri, Resident of village- Raipur Chor, P.S. - Shivsagar, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The National Highway Authority of India through its Chairman, New Delhi. 2.

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) Project Implementation unit Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

3.

The Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 4.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.

The Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.

7.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rohtas at Sasaram. 8.

The Project Manager (Technical) National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, Shivsagar, Rohtas at Sasaram. 9.

The District Sub-Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram. 10.

The Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

11.

The Circle Officer, Shivsagar, Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Additional Advocate General (7) For the NHAI :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shandilya, Advocate :

Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"(i) to set aside the order/arbitral award dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Arbitrator cum Commissioner, Patna Division, in

2/4 Arbitration Case No-508 of 2025, pertaining to land acquisition (L.A. Case No.- 20/2024-25) for the Bharatmala Pariyojana (Varanasi-RanchiKolkata Expressway) by the National Highway Authority of. India, insofar as it concerns the petitioner.

(ii) to direct the RespondentAuthorities to reclassify the petitioner's land (bearing Khata No-75, Plot No-192, Area-621⁄2 Decimals Situated at Mauza-Majhui) as residential and consequently determine compensation at the higher residential rate, utilizing the deeds obtained from the District Sub-Registrar's Office, Rohtas, (as mentioned in the order of award) to ascertain the correct land category and compensation for the acquired land.

(iii) to direct the respondent authorities to follow and act according to the spirit of section 26(a)(b) and explanation I & II of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation

3/4 and Resettlement Act 2013 (RFCTLARR Act 2013) and also in terms of section 3-G(7) of the National Highway Act, 1956.

(iv) for commanding the Respondent Authorities to show cause as to why the petitioner's land has been treated as agricultural whereas the deed provided by the District SubRegistrar's Office, Rohtas, in respect of nearby plots, including a portion of the petitioner's own plot (Plot No-192), clearly demonstrate that the plot in question should be classified within residential category. In addition to the reference mentioned in the official award, the petitioner's land i.e. plot no-192 is situated on the main road and well connected with Basantpur-KhudhanuKenar Kala Road as well as Chenari-Sasaram Road. It is also close to village- Majhui, there are more than 20-25 residential houses already in existence for the last several years.

(v) for commanding the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner for the acquired land, treated as residential (not

4/4 agricultural), with interest calculated since the date it became due until the date of actual payment.

And for such other relief/ reliefs as the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India submits that the order in question has to be challenged before appropriate authority/court and the time is still with the petitioner in this case.

4. In that background, this Court allows the petitioner to approach the competent authority/court at an earliest and within the time frame so that the court concerned can take up the matter and pass a reasoned order. The concerned court must taken into account that the writ petition for sometime was pending before this Court while adjudicating the case.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U