Ramchandra Singh vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1011 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14244 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC011045902025
======================================================
Ramchandra Singh Son of late Rambilash Singh Resident of Village- Kerka
Khadha, Circle- Nabinagar, P.S. N.T.P.C. Khaira and District- Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector of the District, Aurangabad
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad
5. Bishamdeo Singh
6. Gobind Singh
7. Bishwanath Singh
Respondent No. 5 to 7 are Sons of late Chandendeo Singh
8. Munna singh Son of Sri Bishwanath Singh
Respondent No. 4 to 8 are Resident of Kerka Khadha, P.S. Nabinagar, Distt.
Aurangabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ravi Kumar, G.P.-11
: Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, A.C. to G.P.-11
: Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, A.C. to G.P.-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 26-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in CWJC No. 14244 of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
2/10
2016, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ-petitioner
(appellant herein) came to be dismissed.
3. The dispute arises out of acquisition of ancestral land,
in respect of which compensation was awarded and disbursed
amongst the concerned parties under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, a dispute arose with regard
to the respective entitlement of the parties to the compensation
amount, leading to proceedings before the Land Acquisition
Officer, Aurangabad, in L.A. Case No. 1 of 2010-11. The said
proceedings culminated in an order directing recovery of the
compensation amount already disbursed.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant
preferred C.W.J.C. No. 14244 of 2016 before this Court,
challenging the order of recovery, inter alia, on the ground that the
authority had reopened a matter already decided in earlier
proceedings and had relied upon an alleged compromise whose
genuineness was disputed. The dispute concerning the respective
shares of the parties in the ancestral property was also stated to be
pending in Partition Suit No. 133 of 2015.
5. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated
15.09.2025, dismissed the writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 14244 of
2016, the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
3/10
“14 . Taking into account the submissions of the
parties as also the facts that have emerged, it is
clear that pursuant to the decision taken by the
Circle Officer, Nabinagar in Mutation Case
No. 14 of 1973-74 on 30.10.1973 , the families
came to an agreement on 26.06.1974, clearly
demarcating the lands which will go to the
mother of the petitioner as also the father of the
respondent nos. 5 to 8. This formed the basis for
the disposal of the Appeal case no.16 of 1974-75
by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Aurangabad.
15 . The land in question as recorded by the
concerned officer clearly went with the father of
the respondent nos. 5 to 8 namely Chandra Dev
Singh.
16 . In that background, this Court is of the
opinion, the petitioner fraudulently took up the
compensation amount which otherwise belong
to the respondent nos. 5 to 8. This Court fails to
realize why the respondent did not take any step
in accordance with law against the said
fraudulent act.
17. This Court also cannot overlook the
submissions put forward by the learned State
counsel that the agreement between the parties
took place in the year 1974, the land acquisition
process started in the year 2010-11 and only
thereafter, the petitioner came out of deep
slumber and after forty years filed the partition
suit which clearly show that the purpose was to

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
4/10
usurp the amount which genuinely belongs to
the respondents.
18. This take the Court to only one conclusion,
the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the
District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad is
just and proper, no case for interference is made
out. The writ petition stands dismissed.”
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that
the Land Acquisition Officer, having earlier decided the issue of
entitlement to compensation, could not have reviewed its own
order in the absence of any statutory power of review. It is further
submitted that, in view of the dispute regarding the respective
shares of the parties in the acquired land and the pendency of
Partition Suit No. 133 of 2015, the authority was required to make
a reference to the competent civil court under Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, instead of directing recovery of the
compensation already disbursed.
7. It is further submitted that the order of recovery has
been passed by placing reliance upon an alleged compromise in
mutation proceedings, the genuineness of which is seriously
disputed, despite the settled position of law that mutation entries
do not confer title. Learned counsel contends that the learned
Single Judge has affirmed the order of recovery without properly

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
5/10
appreciating the disputed nature of the compromise, the pendency
of the partition suit and the absence of an effective adjudication of
the parties’ respective rights, thereby warranting interference by
this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no
interference is warranted with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, as upon consideration of the materials available on
record the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to grant any
relief to the appellant.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the materials available on record.
10. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the
learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality, perversity or
infirmity warranting interference in the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court.
11. Upon consideration of the materials available on
record and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, it
appears that the dispute concerning entitlement to compensation
arises out of the earlier proceedings relating to the division and
recording of ancestral property between the respective branches of
the family. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the decision

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
6/10
of the Circle Officer, Nabinagar, in Mutation Case No. 14 of 1973-
74, dated 30.10.1973, and the subsequent agreement dated
26.06.1974, which formed the basis for disposal of Mutation
Appeal No. 16 of 1974-75 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Aurangabad.
12. The learned Single Judge has further noticed that, in
terms of the aforesaid arrangement and the available revenue
records, the land in question had been allotted to Chandra Dev
Singh, father of respondent nos. 5 to 8. Having regard to the
aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge concluded that
the appellant had received compensation in respect of land which,
according to the materials considered in the earlier proceedings,
belonged to the branch of respondent nos. 5 to 8, and accordingly
found no ground to interfere with the order dated 12.04.2016
passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad,
directing recovery of the compensation amount.
13. The principal grievance of the appellant is that the
authority could not have reopened an issue already decided in the
earlier proceedings in the absence of any statutory power of
review. The said objection has been considered in the light of the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the
circumstances in which the claim to compensation was examined.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
7/10
The appellant has also relied upon the pendency of Partition Suit
No. 133 of 2015 to contend that the respective rights of the parties
in the ancestral property remain disputed. However, the institution
of the partition suit, by itself, does not establish that the order
under challenge is liable to be set aside, particularly when the
learned Single Judge has examined the earlier proceedings and the
materials relied upon by the authority while sustaining the order of
recovery.
14. It is true that mutation entries do not, by themselves,
confer title, and disputed questions of title are ordinarily required
to be adjudicated by the competent civil court. In Jitendra Singh
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
802 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled position that
mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not adjudicate
title to immovable property. The relevant portion of the said order
reads as follows:
“7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear.
In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat
Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7
SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to
consider the effect of mutation and it is
observed and held that mutation of property
in revenue records neither creates nor
extinguishes title to the property nor has it

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
8/10
any presumptive value on title. Such entries
are relevant only for the purpose of
collecting land revenue. Similar view has
been expressed in the series of decisions
thereafter.
8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial
Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is
observed and held by this Court that an
entry in revenue records does not confer
title on a person whose name appears in
record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue
records or jamabandi have only “fiscal
purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue,
and no ownership is conferred on the basis
of such entries. It is further observed that so
far as the title of the property is concerned,
it can only be decided by a competent civil
court. Similar view has been expressed in
the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India,
(2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin,
(2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of
J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal
Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of
Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi
v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342;
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur
Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191;
Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019)
10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan
Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
9/10
15. Nevertheless, the aforesaid principle must be applied
having regard to the nature of the dispute and the basis of the
impugned order. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has
taken into consideration not merely the revenue entries but also the
earlier agreement and the circumstances surrounding the allotment
of the land and the subsequent disbursement of compensation.
16. Further, Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, provides for reference of disputes concerning apportionment
of compensation or the persons entitled to receive it to the
competent court. The applicability of the said provision has to be
considered in the context of the nature of the dispute and the
proceedings actually undertaken by the authority. The appellant,
however, has not demonstrated any sufficient ground, on the
materials considered by the learned Single Judge, to establish that
the findings recorded in the impugned order warrant interference
in the present appellate proceedings.
17. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, we find that the learned Single Judge has considered
the relevant materials and the circumstances surrounding the claim
to compensation before declining to interfere with the order passed
by the District Land Acquisition Officer. No manifest illegality,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1011 of 2025 dt.26-10-2026
10/10
perversity or infirmity warranting interference in exercise of intra-
court appellate jurisdiction has been made out. The issue framed is
therefore, answered against the appellant.
18. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
19. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date NA