Dasarath Singh vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7209 of 2026
======================================================
Dasarath Singh, Son Late Shivkumar Prasad Singh @ Shiv Prasad Ram @
Shiv Prasad, R/o of Village Mastul Barun, PS Barun, Dist Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Collector, Aurangabad.
2. The District Collector, Aurangabad, Dis Aurangabad.
3. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad, Dis Aurangabad.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Dis Aurangabad.
5. The Competent Authority cum Deputy Collector, Land Reforms,
Aurangabad, Dis Aurangabad.
6. The Anchal Adhikari, Barun Anchal, Dis Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, GP-12
Mr. Vasant Vikas, AC to GP-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for
the following reliefs:
“I. In the nature of certiorari for setting
aside the order dated 24.08.2019 passed
jointly by learned L.R.D.C and Sub-
Divisional Officer, Aurangabad in title
verification case No. 12/2019-2020 whereby
and where under the Raiyati claim of the
petitioner has been recommended to be
rejected based on the report of Circle Officer
Barun and forwarded the same to the Add.
Collector, Aurangabad.
II. In the nature of certiorari also to setting

Patna High Court CWJC No.7209 of 2026 dt.23-06-2026
2/7
aside the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in
the title verification case No. 12/2019-20 by
the Collector, Aurangabad whereby the
order of learned L.R.D.C & S.D.O,
Aurangabad dated 24.08.2019 passed in
aforesaid mentioned case has been
confirmed.
III. In the nature of mandamus also directing
and commanding the respondent authorities
for payment of compensation amount to the
petitioner for the land which has been
acquired by the respondents.
IV. For issuance of any other relief or relief
or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled
for.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in
dispute is part of the land situated in Mauza- Barun, P.S. Barun,
District- Aurangabad bearing Thana No.155, Khata No.171,
Khesara No.1419 area 175 Square metre. The said land is
recorded in Khatiyan as ‘gairmajarua malik’ land and its ex-
landlord had issued kabooliyat bandobasti with respect to the
land of Plot No.1419 along with other plots in the name of
Dukhan Ram, S/o Deodhari Ram, on 17.01.1950 and put the
settlee in their possession and to recognize the settlee as raiyat,
the demand was opened in the name of Dukhan Ram and the
rent receipt was issued in his favour. After the death of Dukhan
Ram, the land came in possession through an amicable partition
among his sons, namely, Shiv Prasad Singh also got his share in

Patna High Court CWJC No.7209 of 2026 dt.23-06-2026
3/7
the property. The father of the petitioner i.e. Shiv Prasad Singh
had four sons and the land came in the possession of the
petitioner through amicable partition. Subsequently, for the
purpose of construction of road over bridge on NH-2, the
National Highway Authority took steps for acquisition of lands,
in relation to that the Anchal Adhikari, Barun Anchal, for the
payment of compensation to the land owners initiated title
verification proceedings against various land owners, whose
land/building were likely to be acquired for construction of road
over bridge.
4. Thereafter, a Title Verification Case No.12/2019-
2020 was instituted against the petitioner to ascertain the title
over the land. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the
petitioner, he appeared before the Anchal Adhikari and produced
the documents on 30.07.2019, creating rayati interest in the land
in question and also produced rent receipt issued in the named
of his ancestors. The Circle Officer, Barun, without ascertaining
the facts and circumstances and ignoring the evidences brought
on record, recommended not to award raiyati claim to the
petitioner.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned
L.R.D.C., Aurangabad, who also rejected the raiyati claim of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7209 of 2026 dt.23-06-2026
4/7
petitioner, whereby the learned Collector, Aurangabad has also
confirmed the recommendation and rejected the raiyati claim of
the petitioner, leaving no options to the petitioner to approach
this Court and to file a writ application.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court finds that the dispute in the present writ application is
one of those where at the time of payment of compensation on
account of accusation made by the State of Bihar, the title of the
petitioner is being challenged.
7. It has been the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the jamabandi in favour of the ancestors of
the petitioner was created in the year 1955 and till date the same
continued. It was pointed out that the land was given in favour
of petitioner through a bandobasti and thereafter they had come
in peaceful possession over the same and had continued for
more than 70 years now.
8. The State has usurped the powers of a Civil
Court by initiating the cancellation of longstanding jamabandi in
favour of the petitioner and his ancestors through a summary
proceeding. It has been submitted that the petitioner has brought
to the knowledge of the authorities, the documents on which
they relied to confirm their title, however, the authorities

Patna High Court CWJC No.7209 of 2026 dt.23-06-2026
5/7
ignored the same and they have gone ahead and has held that the
land was entered in the khatiyan as ‘gairmajarua malik’.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that similarly
situated land holders, whose land were also entered as
gairmajarua malik, were paid compensation and the petitioner
was discriminated.
10. Learned counsel for the parties has relied upon
the case of “Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ,
reported in (2014) 3 PLJR, 584” is relevant in the present facts
and circumstances of the case.
11. One paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
passed in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) is to be taken note of :-
“The result of these three
progressive stages is that if the State wants the
petitioners’ lands or the lands on which the
petitioners have been residing for last 50 years,
they must pay due compensation and take action
in accordance with the provisions of the new
Land Acquisition Act. If they intend to cancel
the Jamabandi then it is for them to move the
Civil Court for a declaration that the alleged
settlement and/or Jamabandi is illegal and
cannot be accepted and let the title of the State
be so declared but till such time the dispute is
resolved, the petitioners cannot be evicted by
the State in any manner nor can just
compensation for acquisition be denied.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.7209 of 2026 dt.23-06-2026
6/7
12. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment on the
subject, it is clear that longstanding jamabandi cannot be
canceled through a summary proceeding and the petitioner
cannot be deprived of the compensation which ought to have
been paid on account of the long period of possession over the
said land.
13. The State, if aggrieved by the fact that the land
could not have been transferred in favour of the petitioner, the
only remedy which the State had was to move before a
competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction for getting the entries and
the subsequent sale deed and get the settlement annulled.
14. In view of the aforesaid observation, the writ
application is allowed.
15. The order dated 24.08.2019 passed jointly by
the learned L.R.D.C. and Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad in
Title Verification Case No.12/2019-2020 and order dated
09.05.2025 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad in Title
Verification Case No.12/2019-20 are hereby quashed.
16. It is directed that the compensation amount
admissible to the petitioner shall be kept in a separate account
by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar.
17. It is further directed that if the State has filed a

Patna High Court CWJC No.7209 of 2026 dt.23-06-2026
7/7
title suit, the District Court shall ensure that the same is decided
within a period of one year.
18. The petitioner is also given liberty to pray for
release of the amount, if the title suit is not decided within a
year from today, especially on account of non-cooperation of the
plaintiff-State of Bihar.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.06.2026
Transmission Date NA