Saurabh Narain Singh vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11054 of 2025
======================================================
1. Saurabh Narain Singh Son of Sh.(Late) Indra Jitendra Narain Singh,
Resident of Ramgarh house, PS-Rupaspur, Bailey Road, District-Patna State
-Bihar 800014.
2. Vaibhav Narain Singh Son of Sh.(Late) Indra Jitendra Narain Singh,
Resident of Ramgarh house, P.S-Rupaspur, Bailey Road, District- Patna
State -Bihar 800014.
3. Rewa Singh Wife of Late Indra Jitendra Narain Singh, Resident of Ramgarh
house, P.S- Rupaspur, Bailey Road, District- Patna State -Bihar 80001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary. Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna,
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms.
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District Patna.
4. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Departmen Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector Patna, District Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District Patna.
7. Circle Officer, Danapur, District Patna.
8. Patna Metro Rail Corporation, through its Managing Director Chief
Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan 7th
Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
9. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna - 800001.
10. General Manager (Work) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Indira
Bhawan 7th floor, Bailey road Patna 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Deepali Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Raushan Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Adv.
Mrs. Alka Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Vikram, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC-9
Ms. Sushmita Sharma, AC to SC 09
Ms. Vagisha Pragya, AC to SC 09
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, AC to SC 09
for the Patna Metro : Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Adv.
======================================================

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
2/77
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned SC-9 for the State
and Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned counsel for the Patna Metro
Rail Corporation Limited.
(A) PRAYER:
(I) (i) the present writ application has been
preferred for quashing of the order dated 28.03.2025 ,
passed by the Collector, Patna in L.A. Case No.
23/2022-23 and L.A. Case No. 39/2024-25 ( Saurabh
Narain Singh & Another vs. The State of Bihar ), by
which the petitioners' application filed under Section
94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth for short 'the
2013 Act' ) has been rejected and the petitioners' land,
admeasuring 1.0417 acres ( 0.6337 acre and 0.408
acre in Part I and Part II respectively ), has been
acquired for the purpose of the Rukunpura Metro
Station , [(which constitutes approximately one-fourth
of their total landholding) (leaving out 3.0483 acres)].
(ii) the Collector, Patna while rejecting the
application held that since the remaining land has

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
3/77
residential constructions and is accessible through two
separate routes for entry and exit, the claim under
Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' does not merit
consideration and is thus dismissed;
(iii) the Collector, Patna lacked the
jurisdiction to decide an application under Section 94
of 'the 2013 Act', as per the proviso to such an
application is/was required to be referred to the
Competent Authority for determination;
(iv) the impugned order is, therefore, ultra
vires, having been passed without jurisdiction and in
violation of the statutory procedure, and without
proper appreciation of the legal and factual issues
involved under the said provision.
(II) the petitioner further wants issuance of
Mandamus for a direction upon the respondent
Collector, Patna to refer the matter to the competent
authority for deciding the case of the petitioners in
relation to the land situated at Village Sadikpur,
Thana No. 19, Khata No. 3, 14, 31, Plot No. 55, 56,
66, 67, 67/318 and part of 86 [with a total area of 415
decimals ("House")] of which only 63 decimals has
been notified to be acquired ("Notified Partial
Acquisition"), and also 40 decimals in the second of

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
4/77
acquisition leaving 312 decimals un-acquired;
(III) the petitioner further wants Mandamus
for a direction not to take the physical possession of
the property situated at Village Sadikpur, Thana No.
19, Khata No. 3, 14, 31, Plot No. 55, 56, 66, 67, 67/318
and part of 86 which is in the possession of the
petitioners;
(IV) for any such other relief as the
petitioner is entitled for.
(B) FACTS OF THE CASE: -
2. The petitioner no. 3, Rewa Singh is the mother of
petitioner nos.1 and 2 namely Saurabh Narain Singh and
Vaibhav Narain Singh respectively. All the three petitioners are
co-owners of the House, which is their ancestral property also
known as the "Ramgarh Kothi" , situated in Village Sadikpur,
Patna . The petitioner no.2 and petitioner no. 3 have authorized
petitioner no.1 to file the writ application and swear the
affidavit. The House has been notified to be partially acquired
for the construction of the Rukunpura Metro Station under
the Patna Metro Rail Project (henceforth for short ' the Patna
Metro ').
3. A portion of the Petitioners' House, having an area
of 63 decimals was earlier notified to be acquired as part of ' the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
5/77
Patna Metro' in Part-I acquisition which forms an integral
part of the Petitioners' residence including a temple, bedrooms,
sitting room, bathrooms, kitchen, deep-boring, boring house,
and an 80 feet wide road, (out of the total area of the House
admeasuring 415 decimals). The land of the Notified Partial
Acquisition includes areas within Khata No. 3, 14, 31, Plot
No. 55, 56, 66, 67/378 and 86(5) in the District of Patna.
4. The further story is that the entire acquisition
process changed significantly in the year 2013 with the
enactment of 'the 2013 Act', replacing the Land Acquisition
Act of 1894 ("Old Act") . 'The 2013 Act' emphasizes a
humane, participative and transparent process for land
acquisition. The preamble of 'the 2013 Act' aims at minimizing
disturbance to landowners and affected persons while ensuring
fair compensation, adequate rehabilitation and resettlement, and
the overall improvement of their social and economic status
post-acquisition.
5. Further, Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' , which is
similar to the Section 49 of “the Old Act” , recognizes the
landowner's right to request for the acquisition of their entire
property if only a part has been taken. This section also
stipulates that possession of the land shall not be taken until

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
6/77
a decision regarding such a request has been made by the
Authority.
6. Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act’ read as follows:
94. Acquisition of part of house or
building. -(1) The provisions of this Act shall not be
put in force for the purpose of acquiring a part
only of any house, manufactory or other building,
if the owner desires that the whole of such house,
manufactory or building shall be so acquired:
Provided that, if any question shall arise
as to whether any land proposed to be taken under
this Act does or does not form part of a house,
manufactory or building within the meaning of this
Section, the Collector shall refer the determination
of such question to the Authority concerned and
shall not be taken possession of such land until
after the question has been determined.
(2) In deciding on such a reference made
under the proviso to sub-section (1), the Authority
concerned shall have regard to the question
whether the land proposed to be taken, is
reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
7/77
of the house, manufactory or building.
(3) If, in the case of any claim under this
Act, by a person interested, on account of the
severing of the land to be acquired from his other
land, the appropriate Government is of opinion
that the claim is unreasonable or excessive, it may,
at any time before the Collector has made his
award, order the acquisition of the whole of the
land of which the land first sought to be acquired
forms a part.
(4) In the case of any acquisition of land
so required no fresh declaration or other
proceedings under Sections 11 to 19 (both
inclusive) shall be necessary, but the Collector
shall without delay furnish a copy of the order of
the appropriate Government to the person
interested and shall thereafter proceed to make his
award under Section 24.”
7. The petitioners’ case is that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Laxman Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2013)
3 SCC 764] have laid down that though right to property is no
longer a fundamental right but the constitutional protection

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
8/77
continues inasmuch as without the authority of law, a person
cannot be deprived of his property.
8. Further, the constitutional protections regarding
property rights, as outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020)
SCC 2 569] held that while the right to property is no longer a
fundamental right under the Constitution, it remains a human
right. Article 300-A of the Constitution mandates that the State,
when exercising its power of eminent domain, must acquire
property for a public purpose and, crucially, pay reasonable
compensation.
9. The case of the petitioners is/are that although their
house is being acquired for a public purpose, the obligation to
provide reasonable compensation is constitutionally implied,
and failing to revise the circle rate or account for the true market
value would violate this principle. The compensation offered
must be reasonable and reflect the actual impact of the
acquisition on the Petitioners' property and livelihood. Further,
the non-adherence to the procedure laid down in 'the 2013 Act'
and the Bihar Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules,
2014 (henceforth for short ‘the Bihar Rules’) for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
9/77
acquisition process goes against the spirit of the law of the land.
The relevant part of the aforementioned judgment in Vidya
Devi (supra) case read as follows:
"12.2. The right to property ceased to be
a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-
Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it
continued to be a human right [Tukaram Kana
Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353: (2013) 1 SCC
(Civ) 491] in a welfare State, and a constitutional
right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Article 300-A provides that no person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law.
The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his
property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay
compensation, though not expressly included in
Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. [K.T.
Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9
SCC 1: (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414]
12.3. To forcibly dispossess a person of
his private property, without following due process
of law, would be violative of a human right, as also
the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v.
Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627],
wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 634, para 6)
"6. Having regard to the provisions

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
10/77
contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the
State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain"
may interfere with the right of property of a person
by acquiring the same but the same must be for a
public purpose and reasonable compensation
therefor must be paid."
10. The contention is that the Collector, Patna instead
of referring the matter to the Competent authority under Section
94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ has rejected the application of the
petitioners on 28.03.2025 forcing them to come before this
Court challenging the said order.
11. The case of the petitioners is/are that a Social
Impact Assessment ("SIA") Report for the land acquisition in
the PMR Project was prepared on 27.08.2022 . This “ SIA”
report pertains to 26 metro stations across Corridor No. 1
(East-West Corridor) and Corridor No. 2 (North-South
Corridor) . The Rukunpura Station is listed at Serial No. 5 in
the proposed metro stations within the East-West Corridor
(also known as the Danapur-Gaurichak Corridor ).
12. The " SIA " Report estimated that a total of 55
prospective landowners and approximately 1,500 individuals
will be indirectly affected, along with 500 land losers, including
street hawkers and footpath shoppers. The report further

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
11/77
includes a discussion of the case study and feedback from the
public hearing held on 20.08.2022 at Patna Municipal
Corporation Office (henceforth for short ‘the PMC’ ). The
notification for the Public Hearing was published by the
District Magistrate, Patna on 06.08.2022 where the petitioner
no.1 raised the issue of non-acquisition, and their name is listed
as Serial No. 2 in the " SIA " Report.
13. The Petitioner no. 1 furnished a representation to
the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna addressing the
need to conduct a Proper " SIA " survey. It was elaborated in the
representation on the importance of the conducting the complete
acquisition of his house for 'the Patna Metro' in line with the
objectives and provisions outlined in Section 94 of 'the 2013
Act'.
th
14. On October 12 , 2022 , the Petitioners submitted
another representation stressing the need for compliance with
Sections 26, 28 and 94 of 'the 2013 Act' . This representation
highlighted the significant loss incurred due to the proposed
acquisition of only 63 decimals for the Rukunpura Metro
Station and asserted that the entire House with total area of 4.15
acres be acquired rather than the Notified Partial Acquisition, in
accordance with Section 94 of ‘ the 2013 Act’ .

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
12/77
15. The petitioner no.1 also argued for compensation
for the loss of 353 feet of frontage on Bailey Road, given the
reduction in value to one-fifth of the current market value. The
petitioner specifically emphasized on the point that for the
proposed Rukunpura Metro Station , ' the Patna Metro '
intends to acquire 63 decimals of the land which includes part of
the house of the petitioner, temple, bed rooms, sitting room,
bathrooms, kitchen, deep-boring, boring house and 80 feet wide
internal road.
16. Further, the proposed land acquisition will deprive
the petitioners of part of the house and entire frontage of 353
feet on Bailey Road (Principal Commercial Road) and will be
70 to 75 feet wide for construction of the Rukunpura Metro
Station in Patna. Thus, the prayer is/was for the total acquisition
of the house of 4.15 Acres instead of partial acquisition under
Section 94 of ' the 2013 Act'.
17. Later, the Respondent No.1, the Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna
(henceforth for short ‘ the Department ’) under Section 11 of
'the 2013 Act' issued a Notification Letter No. 2686 dated
17.11.2022 . The said notification, signed by the Respondent
No.5, pertains to the acquisition of land for the construction of

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
13/77
the Patna Metro Rail Station at Rukunpura . The Notified
Partial Acquisition of the Petitioners' House as set out in the
Section 11 Notification was purportedly based on
recommendations made in ‘ the SIA Report' .
18. The contention is that the portions of the
Petitioners' House, located in Mauja-Sadikpur, have been listed
in the Section 11 Notification, confirming that it has been made
subject to acquisition for 'the Patna Metro' . The Section 11
Notification asserts that there will be no displacement of the
Petitioners' family. Further, it mentions that objections, if any,
have to be filed within 60 days under Section 15 before the
Respondent No. 6, the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna , (henceforth for short 'the DLAO') .
19. Initially, the notification under Section 11 of 'the
2013 Act ' dated 17.11.2022 was postponed by a general
information issued on 01.12.2022 , whereby it was informed that
due to the dissolution of the municipal body, the process of
evaluation of 'the SIA report' by the expert group could not be
completed. As such, the preliminary notification under Section
11(1) of 'the 2013 Act ' published in the daily newspaper on
22.11.2022 for the acquisition of Rukunpura Metro Station
stands postponed till further orders and the said published

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
14/77
notification will be revived after receiving the evaluation report
from the expert group.
20. Later, a general information was issued under the
signature of the Collector, Patna on 17.02.2023 whereby it was
informed that the requisitioning authority i.e. “ the Patna
Metro ” had made available the evaluation of 'the SIA report'.
As such, the preliminary notification published earlier is/are
revived from the date of publication of the general notice. It
further recorded that objections, if any, have to be filed within
60 days under Section 15 of 'the 2013 Act' before the
Respondent No. 6, “ the DLAO , Patna” .
21. In response, the petitioner No.1 duly filed
objection(s) on 01.03.2023 under Section 15 of ' the 2013 Act ',
recording concerns regarding full acquisition of the land,
procedural irregularities as also that the fair compensation has
not been addressed by the Collector, Patna till date.
22. The contention of the petitioners is that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Singh v. State of H.P. reported
in [ (2018) 16 SCC 270 ] held that "Under the scheme of the Act,
once the objections are filed by the affected landowners, the
same are required to be decided by the Collector under Section
15(2) of the Act after affording an opportunity of being heard to

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
15/77
the landowners, who submitted their objections and after
making further inquiry, as the Collector may think necessary, he
is required to submit his report to the appropriate Government
for appropriate action in the acquisition in question" and
directed the Collector to decide the objections raised by the
appellants in the matter within three months' time.
23. The Respondent No.5, the Collector, Patna had
issued a notification under Section 19 of ' the 2013 Act ' on
September 16, 2023 . Thereafter, “the DLAO” , Patna issued a
notice dated 08.06.2024 , under Section 37(2) of 'the 2013 Act '
whereby the measurement for the Notified Partial Acquisition of
the house was calculated.
24. It is the case of the Petitioners that the
measurement of the part land acquired in plot no. 86 by the
Respondents is erroneous and has missed out 0.6 decimals in the
total land acquired in the Notified Partial Acquisition and also in
turn impacted the calculation of compensation made in the said
notice under Section 37(2) of 'the 2013 Act' causing loss to the
Petitioners.
25. The Petitioners case is that between the year 2023
to the year 2025, several representations preferred through the
petitioner no.1 under Section 94 of ' the 2013 Act' , with the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
16/77
respondent no. 6 objecting to the partial acquisition of their
house with a formal request to acquire their entire House.
th
26. On October 26 , 2023 , the Petitioners submitted
an application to the Director , Department of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Government of Bihar , (henceforth for short
‘the Revenue Department’) requesting that the authorities
follow due process under Section 94 of ' the 2013 Act' for
acquiring the entire House emphasizing that the acquisition
should cover their entire House of 4.15 acres and not be limited
to the Notified Partial Acquisition.
27. Thereafter, vide letter no. 3428 dated 30.12.2023 ,
the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Patna wrote a letter to
the Director, Land Acquisition, Bihar at Patna in relation to
the application filed by the petitioner no. 1 and further observed
that spot verification has been done and altogether 4.09 Acre has
been found. Further, Six-member Committee has found on
28.09.2022 that there is a Principal Commercial Road and
subsequently on 24.02.2023, notification under Section 11 and
on 22.09.2023, notification under Section 19 of ' the 2013 Act'
has been published whereafter objections have been filed by the
petitioner under Section 15 and also applications have been filed
to acquire the entire land under Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act'

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
17/77
28. Further, vide letter no. 4861 dated 11.09.2023 , the
Urban Development and Housing Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short 'the UDHD’ ) gave
approval for the acquisition of the entire land of 4.09 Acre with
observation that as one part of the house is being acquired (103
decimal) by ‘ the Patna Metro’, the remaining part shall be
acquired by ‘ the UDHD ’.
29. However, on 01.04.2024 , vide letter No 2287 ,
'the UDHD' cancelled the request for acquisition of the
remaining portion (304 decimal) of land. Therefore the
provision of Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' once again became
relevant in the matter.
30. The petitioners preferred their representations on
20.06.2024 and 27.08.2024 with the same prayer reiterating the
need for the acquisition of their entire House. The contention is
that despite being the competent authority responsible for
deciding the pending representations and making a notification
for acquiring the entire House, the matter has been left pending
for an extended period, with no progress made toward
completing the acquisition as requested by the Petitioners and as
required by 'the 2013 Act'.
31. Furthermore, Section 94(4) of 'the 2013 Act'

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
18/77
allows the Collector to continue with the entire acquisition
without initiating new proceedings under Sections 11 and 19,
thereby promoting a fair and efficient acquisition process.
32. The petitioners case further is that ‘the DLAO’ ,
Patna issued a notice dated 08.06.2024 , under Section 37(2) of
' the 2013 Act' , in which the measurement for the Notified
Partial Acquisition of the House erroneously excluded 0.6
decimals of land in plot no. 86, resulting in an incorrect
calculation of compensation, causing losses to the Petitioners
whereas the land possession certificate and the original sale
deed certifies that the area of plot no. 86 is 75 decimals and the
total area of the House is 415 decimals.
33. At this juncture, it is important to take note of the
fact that the Award for the acquisition of the 0.6337 acres of
land (relating to the first request for acquisition) was prepared
on 08.06.2024 and the petitioners instead of requesting the
respondents to defer the acquisition went ahead and received the
compensation amount of Rs. 42,31,79,330.00/- on 10.07.2024 .
This completed the Part-I acquisition whereafter the land stands
transferred to ‘the Patna Metro’. It thereafter started work on
the Rukunpura Metro Station.
34. Meanwhile, pursuant to the request letter dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
19/77
16.01.2024 by ‘the Patna Metro’ under the signature of its
General Manager, the respondents came up with another
notification under section-11 of 'the 2013 Act' , issued by the
Collector, Patna for the acquisition of 40 decimals of land of
the petitioners as second acquisition for the Rukunpura Metro
Station on 18.01.2025 . The petitioner thereafter once again filed
the objection under section-94 of 'the 2013 Act' on 21.02.2025 .
35. This followed filing of the C.W.J.C No. 1868 of
2025 for acquiring the entire land and to pay compensation at
the market rate by following ‘the 2013 Act’ . This happened
after the completion of the AWARD I relating to first
acquisition when the petitioners received the compensation
amount on 10.07.2024, acquisition completed and the land
transferred to ‘the Patna Metro’.
36. The said writ application (CWJC No. 1868 of
2025) was heard by a bench of this Court and disposed of on
10.02.2025 and the concluding part read as under:
8 . In this background, this Court is not
interested to keep this petition pending and directs
the petitioners to file their representation afresh
before the District Magistrate-cum Collector,
Patna (Respondent no.5) within 30 days from today
under section 94 of the Act of 2013 and District
Magistrate cum-Collector, Patna (Respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
20/77
no.5) upon going through the petitioners'
representation shall take a decision in accordance
with section 94 of the Act of 2013 within 90 days
thereafter.
9 . It is made clear that in case, the
District Magistrate cum-already entertained
petitioners' representation/representations earlier,
then in that case, there is no need for him to pursue
in this matter again. But in case, the District
Magistrate has not passed any order on
representations, then in that case, it is directed that
he shall take a decision with regard to the
initiation of reference before the proper authority
mentioned in the law.
10 . Accordingly, with the aforesaid
direction, this writ petition is hereby disposed off.
11 . It is made clear that order passed by
this Court today shall not create hurdle in any
manner for the Patna Metro Rail Project.
(emphasis added)
37. The petitioners thereafter, being aggrieved partly
by the writ Court's order dated 10.02.2025 preferred L.P.A No.
207 of 2025 ( challenging the observation made therein that the
order will not create any hurdle in any manner for the Patna
Metro Rail Project) on the ground that the clear mandate of
Section 94 of ' the 2013 Act' is that no possession can be taken
until the acquisition is determined.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
21/77
38. Later, the LPA No. 207 of 2025 was disposed of
as withdrawn on 22.07.2025 with the following observation:
Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants, Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam,
learned AAG-12 for the State and Ms. Anukriti
Jaipuriyar, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.8 to 10.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants,
under instruction, seeks permission to withdraw
this appeal with a view to file review application
before the learned Single Judge.
3. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
4. The appeal stands disposed of as
withdrawn.
5. It is clarified that we have not
examined the merits of the case of the appellants.
(emphasis added)
39. The petitioners however, chose not to file any
review petition thus accepting not only the completion of the
PART-I AWARD/ the acquisition but also the writ Court’s
order that there shall be no hurdle in any manner for the Patna
Metro Rail Project.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
22/77
40. Further, in line with the writ Court's order,
petitioners preferred objection/ representation before the
Collector, Patna putting forward their case.
41. The matter was taken up and after hearing the
parties, vide an order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Memo No.
1191 dated 11.04.2025 , the District Magistrate cum
Collector, Patna (in L.A Case No. 23/2022-23 & L.A Case No.
39/2024-25 ( Saurabh Narain Singh & another Vs. The State
of Bihar ) rejected the claim observing that the petitioners' land,
admeasuring 1.0417 acres ( 0.6337 acre and 0.408 acre in Part
I and Part II respectively), stand acquired for the purpose of
the Rukunpura Metro Station , which constitutes
approximately one-fourth of their total landholding (the
remaining land, being 3.0483 acres ).
42. The Collector, Patna further held that the
remaining land has residential constructions and is accessible
through the government roads for the entry and the exit. Further,
the report/ photographs make it clear that earlier, there existed
only residential building and a boundary wall. The structures on
the basis of which the case is being made has been created
recently. As such, the claim under Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act'
have no merit and is dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
23/77
43. The order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the
Collector, Patna as contained in memo no. 1191 dated
11.04.2025 read as follows:
U;k;ky; lekgrkZ&lg&ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] iVuk
lafpdk la[;k& LXXXXV-02/25
ifj;kstuk&iVuk esVªks jsy LVs'ku fuekZ.k vUrxZr :duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 ,oa 02 gsrq
ekStk&lkfndiqj] Fkkuk uaå&19
L.A Case No & 23/2022-23 ,oa 39/2024-25
CWJC No-1868/2025
lkSjHk ukjk;.k flag ,oa vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj
vkns”k Qyd
vkns”k dh
vkns”k vkSj inkf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj
vkns”k ij dh
xbZ dkjZokbZ d
dze la0
vkSj rkjh[k
ckjs esa fVIi.kh
1
rkjh[k lfgr
2
3
28-03-2025
vkosnd lkSjHk ukjk;.k flag oks oSHko ukjk;.k flag]
firk&Loå bUæ ftrsUæ ukjk;.k flag ,oa jsok flag]
ifr&Loå bUæ ftrsUæ ukjk;.k flag] lkfdu&jkex<+
dksBh] Fkkuk&:iliqj] usg: iFk ¼csyh jksM½] ftyk&iVuk
ds }kjk fnukad&21-02-2025 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
iVuk }kjk CWJC No & 1868/2025 esa fnukad&10-
02-2025 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa vH;kosnu lefiZr
fd;k x;kA ç'uxr ekeyk ifj;kstuk&iVuk esVªks jsy
LVs'ku fuekZ.k vUrxZr :duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 ,oa
02 gsrq ekStk&lkfndiqj] Fkkuk uå&19 vUrxZr
vkosndx.k ls lacaf/kr jkex< dksBh ifjlj dh Hkwfe ds
vtZu ls lacaf/kr gSA vkosndx.k ds }kjk ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa
RFCTLARR Act-2013 dh /kkjk&94 ds rgr lEiw.kZ
jkex<+ dksBh ifjlj ds vtZu gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dk
dk;Zdkjh va'k fuEuor gS%&
“In this background, this Court is not
interested to keep this petition pending and
directs the petitioners to file their
representation afresh before the District
Magistrate-cumCollector, Patna (Respondent
no.5) within 30 days from today under section
94 of the Act of 2013 and District Magistrate-
cum-Collector, Patna (Respondent no.5) upon
going through the petitioners' representation
shall take a decision in accordance with
section 94 of the Act of 2013 within 90 days
thereafter.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
24/77
It is made clear that in case, the
District Magistrate cum-Collector has already
entertained petitioners' representation
/representations earlier, then in that case, there
is no need for him to pursue in this matter
again. But in case, the District Magistrate has
not passed any order on representations, then
in that case, it is directed that he shall take a
decision with regard to the initiation of
reference before the proper authority
mentioned in the law"
mä ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa vkosndx.k ,oa
vU; lacaf/krksa dks lquokbZ gsrq uksfVl fuxZr fd;k x;kA
lquokbZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr frfFk&28-03-2025 dks vkosndx.k dh
vksj ls Jh lkSjHk ukjk;.k flag mifLFkr gq,A mudk dFku
gS fd ifj;kstuk&:duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 gsrq muds
vkokl ifjlj jkex< dksBh dk jdck 0-63 ,dM+ Hkwfe dk
vf/kxzg.k fd;k x;k gS rFkk ifj;kstuk&:duiqjk esVªks
LVs'ku ikVZ&02 gsrq jdck 0-40 ,dM+ Hkwfe ds vf/kxzg.k
gsrq vxzsÙkj dkjZokbZ dh tk jgh gSA mä nksuksa Hkkx ds
vf/kxzg.k esa muds edku ds va'k Hkkx dk vf/kxzg.k fd;k
x;k gSA edku ds va'k Hkkx dk vf/kxzg.k fd;s tkus ds
dkj.k /kkjk&94 ds rgr muds lEiw.kZ vkokl ifjlj dk
vf/kxzg.k fd;k tk;A lkFk gh mudk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd
;fn bl laca/k esa dksbZ ç'u iSnk gksrk gS fd vftZr Hkwfe
muds Hkou dk Hkkx gS ;k ugha rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mls
lac) çkf/kdkj dks fufnZ"V dj fn;k tk; vkSj Hkwfe dk
dCtk rcrd ugha fy;k tk; tcrd dh bl ç'u dk
vo/kkj.k u gks tk;A
lquokbZ esa mifLFkr iVuk esVªks ds çfrfuf/k dk
dFku gS fd :duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 gsrq vf/k;kpuk
nkf[ky fd;s tkus ds oä ç'uxr Hkw&[k.M ij ek=
pgkjfnokjh vofLFkr Fkk] mlds vfrfjä LFky ij vU;
dksbZ lajpuk fo|eku ugha FkhA vf/k;kpuk miyC/k djk;s
tkus ds i'pkr fnYyh esVªks jsy d‚jiksjs'ku fyå ds }kjk
ç'uxar Hkw&[k.M dh QksVksxzkQh Hkh fnukad&21-10-2021
dks djk;h x;h FkhA mä QksVks xzkQh ds voyksdu ls
Hkh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vftZr jdck ij pgkjfnokjh ds
vfrfjä ml le; dksbZ vU; lajpuk vofLFkr ugha FkkA
vtZuk/khu Hkw&[k.M okyk ifjlj yxHkx 4 ,dM+ dk gS]
ftlesa ls ek= ,d pkSFkkbZ va'k dk vtZu iVuk esVªks ds
dk;Z ds fy, fd;k tk jgk gSA 'ks"k Hkwfe ftlesa
vkosndx.k dk iqjkuk iSr`d vkokl vofLFkr gS] tks vtZu
ls ckgj gSA buds iSr`d edku dk dksbZ Hkh va'k vftZr
ugha fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk muds vkokl esa vkus&tkus dk
jkLrk igys ls gh miyC/k gSA vtZu dh çfØ;k çkjaHk gksus
ds i'pkr~ vkosnd ds }kjk xyr uh;r ¼ Malafide
Intention ½ ls iSr`d Hkou rFkk pgkjfnokjh ds chp
iSlstuqek lajpuk dk fuekZ.k djk fn;k x;k] rkfd mä
ekeys dks Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&94 ds vUrxZr
vkPNkfnr djk;k tk ldsA ftl ljpuk ds vk/kkj ij

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
25/77
buds }kjk /kkjk&94 ds vUrxZr nkok fd;k tk jgk gS] og
uofufeZr gS rFkk og muds iSr`d vkokl dk va'k ugha gSA
mldk fuekZ.k dk;Z vf/klwpuk çdk'ku ds ckn djk;k
x;k gSA vr,o Jh flag ,oa vU; dk vkosnu /kkjk&94 ds
vUrxZr iks"kuh; ugha gSA vf/k;kph foHkkx ds }kjk vius
nkos ds leFkZu esa vkokl ifjlj dk jaxhu QksVks ,oa
:duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 gsrq nkf[ky vf/k;kpuk dh
Nk;k çfr miyC/k djk;k x;k gS] tks vfHkys[kc) gSA
ftyk Hkw&vtZu] inkf/kdkjh] iVuk ds }kjk
crk;k x;k fd vkosndx.k ls lacaf/kr jkex<+ dksBh
ifjlj dk dqy ekih jdck 4-09 ,dM+ gS] ftlesa ls
:duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 gsrq fnukad&24-12-2020 dks
[ksljk laå&66 ,oa 86 vUrxZr jdok&0-6337 ,dM dk
vf/k;kpuk nkf[ky fd;k x;kA çkIr vf/k;kpuk esa lajpuk
ds :i esa flQZ pgkjfnokjh vafdr gSA vf/k;kpuk ds
vkyksd esa vxzsrj dkjZokbZ djrs gq, Hkw&vtZu dh dkjZokbZ
iw.kZ dh tk pqdh gS rFkk vkosndx.k dks fnukad&10-07-
2024 dks vftZr jdck&0-6337 ,dM+ dk dqy eqvkotk
jkf'k ekså&42]31]79]330-00 :i;s dk Hkqxrku Hkh fd;k tk
pqdk gSA
iqu% :duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&02 gsrq
ekStk&lkfndiqj vUrxZr jkex<+ dksBh ls lcaf/kr [ksljk
laå&66 ,oa 86 vUrxZr jdck 0-408 ,dM dk vf/k;kpuk
izkIr gqvkA çkIr vf/k;kpuk ds vkyksd esa fnuke&22-01-
2025 dks ikjk&11¼1½ ds rgr vf/klwpuk dk çdk'ku
djk;k x;k gSA vkosndx.k ls lacaf/kr jkex<+ dksBh
ifjlj ds 'ks"k jdck&3-0483 ,dM ds vf/k;kpuk gsrq
ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh&lg&vij funs'kd uxj fodkl ,oa
vkokl foHkkx ds i=kad&5622] fnukad&27-09-2023 }kjk
ifj;kstuk&uxj fodkl ,oa vkokl foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj
¼dk;kZy; Hkou½ fuekZ.k gsrq vf/k;kpuk nkf[ky fd;k
x;kA vkosndx.k ds }kjk fnukd&12-10-2022 vU;
frfFk;ksa dks iwoZ esa dbZ ckj /kkjk&94 ds rgr laiw.kZ vkokl
ifjlj ds vtZu gsrq vkifÙk vkosnu nkf[ky fd;k x;k
gSA nks vyx&vyx vf/k;kph fudk; ds }kjk vkosndx.k
ds laiw.kZ vkokl ifjlj dk vf/kxzg.k djus gsrq vf/k;kpuk
nkf[ky djus dh fLFkfr esa ekeyk /kkjk&94 ls çHkkfor
ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k vkosndx.k ds vkifÙk vkosnu dks
iwoZ esa [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS] ftldh lwpuk dk;kZy;
i=kad&3428] fnukad&30-12-2023 ds ek/;e ls funs'kd]
Hkw&vtZu fcgkj nsrs gq, vkosnd dks Hkh lwfpr fd;k x;k
FkkA vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh&lg&vij
funs'kd uxj fodkl }kjk fnukad&01-04-2024 dks
ifj;kstuk uxj fodkl ,oa vkokl foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj
¼dk;kZy; Hkou½ fuekZ.k gsrq nkf[ky vf/k;kpuk dks okil
ys fy;k x;kA vf/k;kpuk okil ysus ds mijkUr
vkosndx.k ds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa okn nk;j
fd;k x;k] ftlds vkyksd esa lquokbZ dh tk jgh gSA
RFCTLARR Act-2013 dh /kkjk&94 esa of.kZr gS fd%&
Acquisition of Part of house or building.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
26/77
1. The provisions of this Act shall not be put in
force for the purpose of acquiring a part only of
any house, manufactory or other building, if the
owner desires that the whole of such house,
manufactory or building shall be so acquired:
Provided that, if any question shall arise as to
whether any iand proposed to be taken under this
Act does or does not form part of a house,
manufactory or building within the meaning of
this Section, the Collector shall refer the
determination of such question to the Authority
concerned and shall not be taken possession of
such land until after the question has been
determined.
2. In deciding on such a reference made under the
proviso to sub-section (1), the Authority
concerned shall have regard to the question
whether the land proposed to be taken, is
reasonably required for the full and unimpaired
use of the house, manufactory or building.
3. if, in the case of any claim under this Act, by a
person interested, on account of the severing of
the land to be acquired from his other land, the
appropriate Government is of opinion that the
claim is unreasonable or excessive, it may, at any
time before the Collector has made his award,
order the acquisition of the whole of the land of
which the land first sought to be acquired forms a
part.
4. In the case of any acquisition of land so
required no fresh declarafron or other proceedings
under Sections 11 to 19 (both inclusive) shall be
necessary, but the Collector shall without delay
furnish a copy of the order of the appropriate
Government to the person interested and shall
thereafter proceed to make his award under
Section 24
mHk; i{k dks lquus ,oa muds }kjk nkf[ky dkxtkrksa ds
voyksdu rFkk Hkw&vtZu] inkf/kdkjh] iVuk }kjk crk;sa x,
rF;ksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosndx.k ds vkokl ifjlj
jkex<+ dksBh dk dqy ekih jdck 4-09 ,dM+ gS] ftlesa ls
#duiqjk esVªks LVs'ku ikVZ&01 ,oa ikVZ&02 gsrq Øe'k jdck&0-
6337 ,dM+ ,oa jdck 0-408 ,dM dqy jdck 1-0417 ,dM
dk vf/kxzg.k fd;k x;k gS] tks laiw.kZ vkokl ifjlj dk
ek= ,d pkSFkkbZ fgLlk gSA vkokl ifjlj dk 'ks"k cpk
jdok&3-0483 ,dM+ gS] ftlij vkosndx.k dk iSr`d
vkokl ,oa ifjlj vofLFkr gSA mä vkokl ,oa ifjlj esa
vkokxeu gsrq nks rjQ ls mi;qä ekxZ Hkh miyC/k gSA
vf/k;kph foHkkx }kjk miyC/k djk;s x, vf/k;kpuk dh

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
27/77
çfr ,oa vkokl ifjlj ds jaxhu Nk;kfp=ksa ds voyksdu ls Hkh
Li"V gksrk gS fd Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k dh çfØ;k ds nkSjku LFky ij
iqjkus edku ds vfrfjä flQZ pgkjfnokjh vofLFkr FkkA ftl
lajpuk ds vk/kkj ij vkosndx.k ds }kjk /kkjk&94 ds rgr
laiw.kZ Hkou ifjlj dk vf/kxzg.k djus dk nkok fd;k tk jgk
gS] og lajpuk uofufeZr gSA vkosndx.k ds }kjk :duiqjk esVªks
LVs'ku Hkkx&01 gsrq nkf[ky vf/k;kpuk ds ckn ls gh dbZ ckj
vius vkokl ifjlj dks /kkjk&94 ls vkPNkfnr djkus gsrq
ç;kl fd;k tk jgk gS] tks mfpr çrhr ugh gksrk gSA ç'uxr
ekeyk RFCTLARR Act &2013 dh /kkjk&94 ls
vkPNkfnr ugha gSA
vr% vkosndx.k ds }kjk /kkjk&94 ds rgr nkf[ky
vkosnu i= dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
blh ds lkFk bl okn dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr fd;k
tkrk gSA
g0@&
28@03@25
lekgrkZ]
iVukA
(emphasis added)
44. Aggrieved, the present writ petition.
(C) SUBMISSIONS:
45. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners submit that while deciding the objection, the
Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Patna in his order dated
28.03.2025 has observed that the petitioners are having Right of
Way from two places. However, the first round of acquisition of
0.6337 acre decimal of land and subsequent acquisition of 0.408
acre of land have resulted in no pathway from the front side
towards Bailey Road rather the petitioners will only be left with
the pathway from the backside by a 23 feet wide road.
46. Further, the Collector -cum- District Magistrate,
Patna has given a finding that different photographs were

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
28/77
available at the time of acquisition provided by the respondents
showing only boundaries on the land is absolutely incorrect,
false and baseless. In fact, when the six-members committee
th
visited the site on September 28 , 2022 and prepared the report.
The pictures taken there clearly show that it was not boundary
wall rather different rooms were existing and it existed prior to
Section 11 notification. The contention further is that the
documents/ photos relied upon by the Collector, Patna were
never supplied to the petitioners and as such, the observation
based on such documents is/are fit to be rejected.
47. The further submission is that by virtue of the
findings given by the Collector -cum- District Magistrate, Patna
as well as the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, the
petitioners will be deprived of any compensation for part of the
house which has been existing on the land in question. The
finding given by the Collector, Patna will affect at two places,
firstly, the petitioner claim under Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' is
going to be barred and secondly, the petitioner claim for
compensation for the structures which is to be made by ‘ the
DLAO ’ Patna .
48. The submission is that the Collector, Patna lacked
the jurisdiction to decide an application under Section 94 of 'the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
29/77
2013 and was duty-bound to refer it to the Competent Authority
for the determination.
49. Further, a bare perusal of Section 94 of ' the 2013
Act ' would show that the acquisition of the part of house or
building if made and if the owner desires that the whole of such
house or building which shall be acquired and the Collector
shall refer the determination of such question to the authority
concerned.
50. The contention is that since “ the Patna Metro”
has proposed to acquire 0.6337 acres of land (first acquisition)
and another 0.408 acres of land (in the second round of
acquisition) but since there were number of structures present as
also it had 80 feet wide internal road from Bailey Road and has
now been left with no road from the front, as such, they rightly
requested for the acquisition of the entire land.
51. Further, under Section 94 of ' the 2013 Act ', once
the application is moved, the Collector has no power to reject
the application which will go against the terms and mandate of
that said Act. The matter needs to be resolved by the appropriate
authority and the Division Bench of Kerala High Court has
dealt such issue in the case of Afsath. C and Ors Vs. State of
Kerala Writ petition (C) No.37868 of 2022) on 22.05.2023

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
30/77
wherein observations have been made as follows:-
11. Having considered the arguments
advanced by either side and the decisions referred
above, it is obvious that the 2nd respondent does
not have any other option but to refer the question
for consideration by the concerned authority.
Section 94 as earlier said is almost similarly
worded as Section 49 of the old Act and is
extracted for reference.
"S.94(1). The provisions of this Act shall
not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring the
part only of any house, manufactory or other
building, if the owner desires that the whole of
such house, manufactory or building shall be so
acquired:
provided that if any question shall arise
as to whether any land proposed to be taken under
this Act does or does not form part of a house,
manufactory or building within the meaning of this
Section, the Collector shall refer the determination
of such question to the authority concerned and
shall not be taken possession of such land until

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
31/77
after the question has been determined.
(2) In deciding on such a reference made
under the Proviso to Sub Section 1, the authority
concerned shall have regard to the question
whether the land proposed to be taken, is
reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use
of the house, manufactory or building."
12. Section 94 contemplates the
acquisition of a part of the building, as well as the
acquisition of land which is reasonably required
for the full and unimpaired use of the house,
manufactory or building and what is required to be
referred by the Collector is question that shall
arise as to whether any land proposed to be taken
under this Act does or does not form part of a
house, manufactory or building within the meaning
of the Section. In the case on hand, what is
proposed to be taken is the land. Going by the
definition of land, it includes benefits arising out of
land and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to anything attached to the
earth, which is wide enough to include a building

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
32/77
or a portion thereof. Sub-section (2) puts the issue
in perspective when it says that the authority
concerned must look into the question whether the
land proposed to be taken is reasonably required
for the full and unimpaired use of the house,
manufactory, or building. As such, Ext. P9 is not
only without jurisdiction but also has been issued
without considering the aspects which are required
to be decided on a reference under the proviso to
Section 94(1).
In the result, this writ petition is allowed.
Ext. P9 is quashed. There will be a direction to the
2nd respondent to refer the issue raised in Exts.P7
& P8 to the concerned authority for decision and
as required by Section 94. Taking physical
possession of the property shall be deferred till a
decision is taken by the concerned authority.
52. Learned counsel took this Court to another case
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Bihar and Anr. vs. Kundan Singh and Anr. r eported in 1963
SCC Online SC 160 with reference to paragraphs 12 and 16
and it read as follows:

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
33/77
12. It would be noticed that if an
objection is made by the owner under
Section 49(1), the Collector may decide to
accept the objection and accede to the desire
of the owner to acquire the whole of the
house. In that case, further proceedings will
be taken on the basis that the whole of the
house is being acquired. In some cases, the
Collector may decide to withdraw
acquisition proceedings altogether, because
it may be thought not worthwhile to acquire
the whole of the house; in that case again,
nothing further remains to be done and the
notification issued has merely to be
withdrawn or cancelled. But cases may arise
where the Collector may not accept the
claim of the owner that what is being
acquired is a part of the house; in that case,
the matter in dispute has to be judicially
determined, and that is provided for by the
second proviso to Section 49(1). Under this
proviso, the Collector is under an obligation
to refer the matter to the Court and he shall
not take possession of the land under
acquisition until the question is determined
by the Court. In dealing with this matter, the
Court has to have regard to the question as
to whether the land proposed to be taken is
reasonably required for the full and
unimpaired use of the house.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
34/77
16 . It now remains to consider two
relevant decisions which were cited before
us. In Secretary of State for India in Council
v. R. Narayanaswamy Chettiar, the Madras
High Court appears to have taken the view
that there is nothing in Section 49 requiring
the claimant to put forward his particular
claim viz. that the whole of his house should
be acquired, at any particular stage of the
proceedings. Preferring to Section 49(1),
Ramesam Off. C.J., observed that the said
clause cannot imply that the claims covered
by it should be made before the Collector
makes his award. Cornish, J., who delivered
a concurrent judgment agreed with this view.
It appears that in coining to this conclusion,
both the learned Judges referred to the
special circumstances under which the
claimant made his claim under Section 49 on
the 29th September, that is to say, after the
award, and those special circumstance
clearly showed that the claimant was not to
blame for the delay made by him in
expressing his desire under Section 49 (1). In
our opinion, however, the scheme of Section
49 is clear. Section 49(1) has imposed a ban
on taking any further action under any of the
provisions of the Act where the owner
expresses a desire that the whole of his
house should be acquired, and that clearly

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
35/77
indicates that after the relevant notifications
are issued under Sections 4 and 6, if it
appears to the owner of the land under
acquisition that a part of his house is being
acquired, he has to express his desire before
an award is made under Section 11;
otherwise if the owner allows proceedings to
be taken under the provisions of the Act and
an award follows, it would lead to
unnecessary complications if the owner is
allowed to express his desire under Section
49(1) and the reference is then required to be
made under the second proviso to Section
49(1). Logically, if an enquiry has to be
made as contemplated by Section 49, it must
precede any further action under the other
provisions of he Act, and that is the main
basis of the mandatory prohibition
prescribed by 49(1). The said prohibition
coupled with the first proviso to Section
49(1) leads to the conclusion that the owner
cannot take recourse to Section 49 after an
award is made under Section 11 of the Act.
In our opinion, therefore, the High Court did
not correctly interpret the effect of Section
49(1) when it held that the said section did
not require the claimant to put forward his
claim before the award was made.
53. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
36/77
the aforesaid background, the writ petition is fit to be allowed
and the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Collector, Patna
be quashed.
(D) COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 (‘THE PATNA METRO’)
54. The stand of the respondent nos. 8 to 10 (‘the
Patna Metro) is/are that the present case of the writ petitioners
is/are totally misconceived and devoid of any merit and has
been filed just to stall the progress of the Patna Metro Rail
Project with an attempt to enlarge the scope of acquisition by
subsequently raising new structures which is neither permissible
nor supported by law under Section 94 of ' the 2013 Act' .
55. Their case is that for the establishment of the
metro line in the city under the Patna Metro Rail Project and
with the objective of relieving the city dwellers of traffic
congestion, providing fast moving traffic, minimizing the traffic
pollution and in pursuit of economic prosperity of the area, the
acquisition process was initiated.
56. Accordingly, a requisition for acquisition of 09026
acres of land , which included 0.013 acre in Plot No. 66 and
0.6207 acre in Plot No. 86 , along with other plots were sent
vide letter no. 492 dated 24.12.2020 issued by the General

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
37/77
Manager (Works), Patna Metro to the Collector, Patna for
the construction of the Rukunpura Metro Rail Station.
57. Further, the aerial photography made on
21.10.2021 (which is part of Annexure R8/D) shows that there
was no structure on Plot No. 66 while only a boundary wall
existed on Plot No. 86 . Thus, at the time of requisition for
acquisition dated 24.12.2020 , apart from the old house and the
boundary wall, no other substantial structure existed on the
acquired portion. The newly constructed structures that came up
later and certainly, it was created by the Petitioners with an
ulterior motive to push the case under Section 94 of ‘the 2013
Act’ which were makeshift structures and certainly, not the
main residential building. They have not come up with any
sanctioned plan/map approved by ‘the PMC’ for the newly
created structures that came up between the year 2020-2022.
58. Further, after Social Impact Assessment was
completed and a notification under Section 11(1) of ' the 2013
Act' was issued vide letter No. 2686 dated 17.11.2022 by the
Collector, Patna , following the due procedure, the Award for
the aforesaid acquisition was made on 08.06.2024 and the
petitioners duly received compensation amount amounting to a
total sum of ₹ 42,31,79,330/- (Rs. 28,21,21,779 + Rs.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
38/77
14,10,57,551) on 10.07.2024. The contention is that once the
petitioners received the compensation amount and the
respondents took possession of the land and after the transfer,
‘the Patna Metro’ started work on it, the petitioners cannot put
forward plea for deferring the acquisition and refer the matter to
the authority.
59. The further case of ‘ the Patna Metro ’ is that on
the requirement of additional land by Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (henceforth for short ‘ the Delhi Metro ’) which is
the executing agency, an additional requisition for acquisition of
0.408 acre (Part-II) of the petitioners’ land in Mauja Sadikpur
under Danapur Circle was sent on 16.01.2024 under the
signature of the General Manager (Works) Patna Metro to
the Collector, Patna. Here, the respondent took note of
structure on plot no. 66 which according to them was created as
the aerial photography of the year 2021 do not show any
structure existing there. This was created illegally at a later
stage, without any sanctioned map from ‘the PMC’ and only to
make out a case under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’.
60. This followed the notification dated 18.01.2025
and objections preferred by the petitioners on 21.02.2025 . Later,
Award for Part-II acquisition was also made on 12.07.2025

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
39/77
and once again, the petitioners came forward and received the
compensation amount of ₹ 26,64,11,611/- (Rs. 8,88,03,871 +
Rs. 17,76,07,740) on 03.10.2025. Thus, after receiving the
entire compensation amount for the PART-I and PART-II
acquisitions for ‘ the Patna Metro’ which followed taking over
of the acquired land and its transfer as also the pacing up of the
work for the construction of the Rukunpura Metro Station ,
certainly, the petitioners’ case has moved beyond their
contention not to acquire the property till the matter is
referred/adjudicated under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’.
61. The further case of ‘the Patna Metro’ is that the
entire valuation amount of the acquired land amounting to a
total compensation of ₹ 68,95,90,941/- has been paid to the
petitioners which include the compensation amount for the 353
feet frontage towards Bailey Road. It is only the valuation of the
later developed structures which is pending and for which, the
Executive Engineer, Building Division, Danapur has already
submitted a valuation report vide letter No. 3314 dated
16.10.2025 to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
62. The contention is that ever since the initiation of
proceedings relating to Rukunpura Metro Station Part-I , the
Petitioners have repeatedly attempted to bring their entire land,

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
40/77
(admeasuring 4.09 acres) within the ambit of Section 94 'the
2013 Act '. However, such attempts are not supported by the
factual record and are misconceived in law.
63. The contention further is that the petitioners have
never denied that the old residential building has remained
untouched and in that background, there is no question of
applicability of Section 94 of ‘ the 2013 Act’ . The contention put
forward by ‘the Patna Metro’ is that it does not affect the
viability or usability of acquiring the entire land comprising
3.0483 acres (which includes the residential building of the
petitioner and which is fully functional, structurally sound, and
provided with unobstructed access) . Further, not an inch of the
residential building has been taken over and/or touched. Thus,
the statutory requirements for invoking Section 94 of 'the 2013
Act' are not fulfilled. The present petition is totally
misconceived, untenable, and contrary to the factual and legal
position and is thus fit to be dismissed.
64. The further stand is that the petitioners after
receiving the AWARD-I compensation amount moved before
this Court by filing CWJC 1868 of 2025 for seeking direction
to the respondents to acquire the entire residential complex of
the petitioners as per provision of Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act '.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
41/77
65. The writ petition was disposed of vide an order
dated 10.02.2025 with a direction to the petitioners to file a
fresh representation before the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, Patna while making it clear that the order shall not
hinder the Patna Metro Rail Project.
66. Aggrieved by the said observation, the petitioners
filed a Letter Patent Appeal against the Order dated 10.02.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge vide LPA no. 207 of 2025
and simultaneously, preferred representation before the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna on 21.02.2025.
67. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn on
22.07.2025 allowing the petitioners to file review petition.
However, the petitioners chose not to file the review petition.
Thus, the observation of the writ Court allowing ‘the Patna
Metro’ to go ahead with the project was accepted by the
petitioners.
68. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna
took up the representation of the petitioners and after hearing
the parties and after considering all the relevant facts as also
examining the documents submitted by the parties including the
report of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna,
thereafter rejected the claim vide an order dated 28.03.2025

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
42/77
communicated vide memo no. 1191 dated 11.04.2025 .
69. While rejecting the claim, the Collector, Patna
observed that for the purpose of Rukunpura Metro Station
Part-I and Part-II , the petitioners land admeasuring 0.6337
acres and 0.408 acres , respectively, was/were only acquired
which amounts to a total of 1.0417 acres , (and is approximately
one-fourth of the entire complex), while the remaining 3.0483
acres which comprise the Petitioner's ancestral residence and the
surrounding residential compound have been left out. The field
inspection report and colored photographic evidence reveal that
suitable access roads exist from of the campus ensuring
uninterrupted connectivity to it. Thus, the partial acquisition
does not affect the viability or usability of the remaining
structure.
70. The order further indicates that at the time of
acquisition, apart from the old house and the boundary wall, no
other substantial structures existed on the acquired portion and
the newly constructed structure which is being relied upon by
the Petitioners is/are a new construction. The Collector, Patna
also took note of the submissions put forward by ‘the DLAO,
Patna’ that following the payment of Rs. 42,31,79,330/- to the
petitioners on 10.03.2024 for the PART-I acquisition, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
43/77
process of acquisition stands completed. In that background, the
application of the Petitioners was rejected.
71. The contention of the respondents is/are that the
Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' applies only where partial
acquisition renders the remaining portion of a house, building,
or structure unviable or unusable. In the present case, the
original building remains untouched, fully functional,
structurally sound, and provided with unobstructed access.
Thus, the statutory requirements for invoking Section 94 of 'the
2013 Act' are not fulfilled.
72. Also, the claim of the Petitioners under Section 94
of 'the 2013 Act' is not supported by any material evidence and
is rather based upon self-generated circumstances created after
the initiation of acquisition proceedings in the year 2020. This
renders the writ application of the Petitioners liable to be
rejected. Though the petitioners have repeatedly harped that it is
not the date of request but the date of notification that matters,
they have not come out with any sanctioned plan to show/ prove
their contention that the construction work was going on since
long.
73. The contention is that the acquisition of land for
the construction of Rukunpura Metro Station Part-I and

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
44/77
Part-II now stand completed. The acquired lands have been
transferred to the ‘the Patna Metro’ after the full compensation
amount received by the petitioners and the project is at an
advance stage. Any obstruction in the project at this stage will
completely derail the construction putting huge financial burden
on its exchequer which will by no means serve the public
interest at large as the project is financially aided by the Japan
International Cooperation Agency, the financial institution
of Japan.
74. So far as the decision cited by the petitioners are
concerned, the contention of the respondents is/are that not an
inch of the petitioners original residential house which existed
in the year 2020 has been touched warranting invocation of
Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ and in that background, the
Collector, Patna rightly passed the order which need no
interference and the writ petition be dismissed.
75. Learned counsel for ‘the Patna Metro’ has relied
upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India & ors. vs. N. Murugesan & ors. reported in
(2022) 2 SCC 25 with reference to paragraphs 25 and 27 and
submit that having received the AWARD-I on 10.07.2024 and
AWARD-II on 03.10.2025 and further accepting the earlier writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
45/77
Court’s order dated 10.02.2025 that ‘the Patna Metro’ work
shall not be hampered, the petitioners cannot turn around and
ask for referring the matter under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’
and till then to defer the acquisition.
76. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the Union of India & ors. (supra) case
read as follows:
25 . Acquiescence would mean a
tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and
reluctant consent to an act. In other words,
such an action would qualify a passive
assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes
place, it presupposes knowledge against a
particular act. From the knowledge comes
passive acceptance, therefore instead of
taking any action against any alleged refusal
to perform the original contract, despite
adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead
being allowed to continue by consciously
ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further,
acquiescence does take place. As a
consequence, it reintroduces a new implied
agreement between the parties. Once such a
situation arises, it is not open to the party
that acquiesced itself to insist upon the
compliance of the original terms. Hence,
what is essential, is the conduct of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
46/77
parties. We only dealt with the distinction
involving a mere acquiescence. When
acquiescence is followed by delay, it may
become laches. Here again, we are inclined
to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to
be seen on a case-to-case basis.
Approbate and reprobate
26. These phrases are borrowed
from the Scots law. They would only mean
that no party can be allowed to accept and
reject the same thing, and thus one cannot
blow hot and cold. The principle behind the
doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept
of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is
a principle of equity coming under the
contours of common law. Therefore, he who
knows that if he objects to an instrument, he
will not get the benefit he wants cannot be
allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits.
One cannot take advantage of one part while
rejecting the rest. A person cannot be
allowed to have the benefit of an instrument
while questioning the same. Such a party
either has to affirm or disaffirm the
transaction. This principle has to be applied
with more vigour as a common law
principle, if such a party actually enjoys the
one part fully and on near completion of the
said enjoyment, thereafter questions the
other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
47/77
in this principle. It is also a species of
estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party.
We have already dealt with the provisions of
the Contract Act concerning the conduct of a
party, and his presumption of knowledge
while confirming an offer through his
acceptance unconditionally.
77. Learned counsel concludes by submitting that the
writ petition being bereft of merit, it be dismissed.
(E) REPLY TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF
RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10
78. In reply, the contention of the petitioners is/are
that the averments in the counter-affidavit of the respondent nos.
8-10 are false, incorrect, and denied. The petitioners have not
filed this petition to enlarge the scope of acquisition by raising
new constructions.
79. Further, they do not dispute that the Patna Metro
Rail Project is a public interest project and have not challenged
the acquisition but simply want the acquisition of entire land
which the Collector, Patna has overlooked.
80. The contention of the petitioners is/are that the
statement that no structure existed on plot no. 66 and only a
boundary wall existed on plot no. 86 is incorrect. The
respondents are misconceived in thinking that the date of

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
48/77
requisition is the relevant date for acquiring land rather it is date
of issuance of notification under Section-11 which will be taken
as the cut-off date for determining compensation and
considering structures on the land.
81. Further, the issuance of notification under Section
11 of 'the 2013 Act' is the relevant date. The respondents have
failed to appreciate that the earlier notification dated
17.11.2022 , was withheld as Expert committee report was not
submitted and was reissued only after Expert committee
meeting held on 14.02.2023 . Thus, 17.02.2023 is the actual date
of section 11 notification which was published in the
newspaper on 24.02.2023.
82. ' The SIA report ' followed a process of public
hearing under Section-5 of 'the 2013 Act' which took place on
05.08.2022 . The house of the present petitioner was taken into
consideration during the public hearing. ' The SIA report ' shows
that the petitioner's house existed at the time ‘the SIA report’
was prepared on 20.08.2022.
83. A notice for the six-members committee visit was
made on 20.09.2022 , the committee visited the house of the
present petitioner on 28.09.2022 and took into consideration the
fact that a part of the house was constructed on the land to be

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
49/77
acquired. The signatures of the officials were also taken in the
report and photographs show the team inspection of the entire
structure prior to section 11 notification issued after six months.
84. So far as the payment part is concerned, it was
accepted by the petitioners under protest. The respondents are
under a false assumption that payment justifies their actions.
The petitioner's case involves losing the entire front of their land
with no access from Bailey Road on which they had a 353 feet
frontage with over 80 feet wide road on east and west to enter
the house. Now with no passage from the Bailley Road, it
resulted into huge loss to them.
85. Further, to the contention of the respondents that
only to attract section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' , the fresh structures
have came up, is denied. The date of issuance of the earlier
notification under Section 11 is 17.11.2022 but it was only on
17.02.2023 that the notification was re-issued. However, the
public hearing under Section-5 of 'the 2013 Act' do took place
on 05.08.2022 .
86. Further, the Photographs are part of the rejoinder
affidavit, showing the structures were present when 'the SIA
report' was prepared. The six-members committee also took
note of the structures during their meeting at the petitioner's

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
50/77
premises.
87. Thus, the evidence brought on record in the form
of photographs dated 21.10.2021 is/are misconceived, as it pre-
dates the Section 11 of 'the 2013 Act' notification by over 13
months.
88. At this juncture, this Court records that the
petitioners’ case is that notification date is relevant when the
structures existed but there is no strong rebuttal on the stand of
the respondents that no part of the ancestral residential building
has been acquired and the structures that have come up
subsequently were built after ‘the Patna Metro’ intention to
acquire the land came out in the public domain when the request
was made to the Collector, Patna on 24.12.2020. They have also
not refuted the stand taken by ‘the Patna Metro’ that no
sanctioned map of ‘the PMC’ is on record to support their case.
89. So far as the payment part is concerned, the
reiteration is that the payments made for acquisition of Part-II
has again been received under protest. The petitioners thus kept
their right to seek higher compensation before the appropriate
forum reserved and challenged the same before this Court as
they have reason to believe that it is contrary to the provisions
of 'the 2013 Act'.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
51/77
90. So far as the contention of taking over the
possession of the land is concerned, it is submitted that handing
over the possession of the land does not exempt the respondents
from complying with Section 94 of 'the 2013 Act' . Further,
acquiring the additional land will not hamper the project and
will provide the respondents with ample space for parking,
commercial activities, and other purposes. Also, the physical
possession took place only on 25.11.2025 with the sole purpose
to mislead the court and destroy the part of the house to make
this writ petition weak.
(F) COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT NOS. 5 AND 6 (‘THE STATE
RESPONDENTS’)
91. The stand of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 (the
State respondents) is/are that the petitioners had earlier filed a
writ petition being CWJC No-1868 of 2025 to consider their
representations preferred under Section 94 'the 2013 Act' with
regard to dwelling unit located in Village Sadikpur, Patna
(commonly known as Bailey Road, Patna) for acquiring the
entire land under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ .
92. The contention is that the said writ petition was
filed only after the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
52/77
42,31,79,330/- was received by them on 10.07.2024 which
followed acquisition and transfer of land to ‘the Patna Metro’ in
furtherance of AWARD-I.
93. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.02.2025
with a direction to the Collector, Patna to take a decision on
the representation of the petitioners making it clear that it shall
not create any hurdle in the work of the Patna Metro Rail
Project.
94. In the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Court, notices were issued to the petitioners as also the other
stakeholders. The matter was heard on 28.03.2025 in the
presence of the petitioner no.1, Shri Saurabh Narain Singh ,
the representative of ‘the Patna Metro’ and the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Patna.
95. The petitioners informed that 0.63 acre land has
been acquired in the Project-Rukunpura Metro Station Part-
01 and for 0.40 acre for the Rukunpura Metro Station Part-
02, it is in process which include the part portion of his house.
Thus, entire premises be acquired.
96. The representative of ‘ the Patna Metro ’ on the
other hand with the support of photographs of 21.10.2021
refuted it and informed that apart from the boundary wall, no

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
53/77
other structure was present at the time of acquisition of
Rukunpura Metro Station Part-01 . Only one-fourth area of
the premise are being acquired and no part of the main house
has been acquired. Further, there are passage for the ingress and
outgress to the said house. The petitioners are making claim
with malafide intention on a newly constructed structures built
after ‘ the Patna Metro ’ intention to acquire the land came in
public domain only to seek benefit under section 94 of 'the
2013 Act'.
97. ‘ The DLAO’, Patna informed that the total area
of the premises is 4.09 acre of which requisition has been made
for acquisition of one fourth of the Plot Nos-66 and 86 . In the
said requisition, only boundary wall has been mentioned as
structure. The land acquisition process for PART-I has been
completed and payment of Rs.- 42,31,79,330.00 has been made
on 10.07.2024 for the acquired land of 0.6337 acre for the
Rukunpura Metro Station. Further, PART-II , requisition has
been made for 0.408 acre pursuant to which notification dated-
22.01.2025 has been issued.
98. The Additional Director of ‘ the UDHD ’ vide
letter no-5622, dated-27.09.2023 earlier showed intention for
the acquisition of the remaining land (3.0483 acre) but later,

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
54/77
was withdrawn. The objection raised by the petitioners dated-
12.10.2022 stand rejected which has been informed vide letter
no-3428, dated-30.12.2023 by the Director, Land Acquisition,
Bihar, Patna.
99. In that background, the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, Patna after considering all the facts on record vide
an order dated 28.03.2025 came to the conclusion that the total
area of the premises is 4.09 acre from which requisition has
been made for acquisition of 0.6337 acre in Plot No-66 and 86.
Further, the Rukunpura Metro Station PART-II , acquisition
has been made for 0.408 acre. Thus 1.0417 acre have been
acquired which is about one-fourth of the total area. The
petitioners have access to the road from the said house and
further from the photographs, it is clear that apart from the old
house and boundary wall, no structure has been found initially.
Whatever has been claimed, those are new structures
Accordingly, the representation of the petitioners was rejected.
100. Further, to support the said order, learned State
Counsel has taken this Court to an order of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs.
Bimal Kumar Shah reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 with
reference to paragraph 33.7 which read as under:

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
55/77
33.7. The Right of conclusion
33.7.1. Upon conclusion of
process of acquisition and payment of
compensation, the State takes possession of
the property in normal circumstances. The
culmination of an acquisition process is not
in the payment of compensation, but also in
taking over the actual physical possession of
the land. If possession is not taken,
acquisition is not complete. With the taking
over of actual possession after the normal
procedures of acquisition, the private
holding is divested and the right, title and
interest in the property, along with
possession is vested in the State. Without
final vesting, the State's, or its beneficiary's
right, title and interest in the property is
inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties.
The obligation to conclude and complete the
process of acquisition is also part of Article
300A.
33.7.2. Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5 of
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 37
and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
and Sections 3-D and 3-E of the National
Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
56/77
this right of the acquirer.
33.7.3. This step of taking over of
possession has been a matter of great
judicial scrutiny and this Court has
endeavoured to construe the relevant
provisions in a way which ensures non-
arbitrariness in this action of the acquirer.
For that matter, after taking over possession,
the process of land acquisition concludes
with the vesting of the land with the
authority concerned. The culmination of an
acquisition process by vesting has been a
matter of great importance. On this aspect,
the courts have given a large number of
decisions as to the time, method and manner
by which vesting takes place.
101. The contention of the learned State Counsel is
that the order passed by the Collector, Patna dated 28.03.2025 is
a reasoned order. The writ petition thus is fit to be dismissed.
(G) REPLY TO COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 5 AND 6
102. In reply to the State’s contention, the petitioners
contention is that pursuant to the notice issued, the present
petitioner no.1 appeared and filed its reply. However, order
dated 28.03.2025 came to be passed without considering the
provisions of law by the District Magistrate, Patna.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
57/77
103. Further, the contention regarding access is also
incorrect. 'The SIA report' which show that they should be
given ingress and egress for the house has not been considered.
104. This Court again takes note of the fact that on
03.10.2025 , the petitioners received the compensation amount
for the Award II with complete knowledge that the Award
amount includes acquisition of the entire frontage of 353 feet
from the Bailey Road side. After receiving compensation
amount, the petitioners allowed ‘the Patna Metro’ to take over
the AWARD-II land where the Metro Rail work is at full pace.
105. The further contention of the petitioners is that
the house and boundary wall were part of the Ramgarh Kothi
and the date of issuance of notification (17.11.2022) under
Section 11 has to be considered for this purpose. The
submission is that the stand of the State is thus fit to be rejected.
(H) SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF THE
PETITIONERS:
106. The petitioners by way of supplementary
affidavit submit that in the year 2020, structures were ready and
in existence. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, further
construction was delayed. However, by July 2022, prior to the
Social Impact Assessment ( SIA ) hearing, the remaining

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
58/77
constructions were also completed which included the
additional rooms, bathrooms, and passage. From July 2022
onwards, the structures remained unchanged till the date of
demolition.
107. This Court has to take note of the
acknowledgment made by the petitioners that most of these
structures have come up between the year 2021-24 on the basis
of which they want consideration of the matter under Section 94
of ‘the 2013 Act’. However, the sanctioned map of ‘the PMC’
which should have been part of the writ petition is missing.
108. The petitioners further case is that the actual
demolition of their property took place on 25.11.2025 . The
structures demolished on that date are the very structures whose
existence are being denied by the respondents. The photographs
dated 27.11.2025 , depict the post-demolition condition of the
property.
109. Learned counsel for the petitioners conclude by
submitting the order of the Collector, Patna dated 28.03.2025
has to go and the writ petition be allowed.
(I). FINDINGS:
110. Having heard the parties and after perusing the
records, the facts that emerges is/are that:

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
59/77
(i) the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited
arrived at the scene in the year 2020 with the intention to
construct the Metro Rail for the Patna Commuters;
(ii) the process accordingly started in the year 2020 ,
when the letter no. 492 dated 24.12.2020 was issued by its
General Manager to the Collector, Patna with the request for
the acquisition of amongst the other petitioners’ land for the
construction of the Rukunpura Metro Rail Station under ‘the
Patna Metro’.
(iii) part of the petitioners 4.09 acres of land ( the
petitioners claim it to be 4.15 acres ) was to be acquired for it;
(iv) initial (PART- I) acquisition was for the 0.6337
acres of land on plot no. 66 and 86 ;
(v) the aerial photograph of the year 2021 shows that
there was no structure on the plot no. 66 while a boundary wall
existed on the plot no. 86. An old residential house that is/was
present in the rest of the plot is/was not part of the acquisition;
(vi) on 05.08.2022 , the Collector, Patna issued the
general notice announcing public hearing to be held on
20.08.2022 for the Rukunpura Metro Station;
(vii) after the public hearing on 20.08.2022 , ‘the SIA
report’ for the project was finalized on 27.08.2022.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
60/77
(viii) thereafter, the Collector, Patna issued
notification under Section 11(1) of ‘the 2013 Act’ vide letter
no. 2686 dated 17.11.2022;
(ix) it was later postponed through a notice dated
01.12.2022 . However, after ‘ the Patna Metro’ submitted
Expert group evaluation on ‘the SIA report’ , the Collector,
Patna vide general notice dated 17.02.2023 revived the
preliminary notification and objections under Section 15 of ‘the
2013 Act’;
(x) on 08.05.2023 , the petitioner no. 1 submitted an
objection under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ challenging the
Notified Partial Acquisition and requested for full acquisition
of their home.
111. Further,
(i) after considering the objections, the AWARD for
the PART-I acquisition was made on 08.06.2024 and the
acquisition was completed on 10.07.2024 when the petitioners
received compensation amount of Rs. 42,31,79,330/- for 0.6337
acres of the land;
(ii) ‘the Patna Metro’ took over the 0.6337 acres of
the land where the work progressed.
112. As the story further unfolds:

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
61/77
(i) ‘the Delhi Metro’ (the executing agency) made
requisition for additional acquisition of the land (0.408 acre) of
the petitioners’ land on 16.01.2024 under the signature of its
General Manager;
(ii) after receiving the AWARD-I amount on
10.07.2024, the petitioners moved before Patna High Court by
filing CWJC No. 1868 of 2025;
(ii) it was disposed of on 10.02.2025 by a Co-ordinate
Bench directing the Collector, Patna to consider and dispose of
the representation of the petitioners while making it clear that
this will not hinder the progress of ‘Patna Metro’;
(iv) aggrieved by the said observation of the learned
Single Judge, the petitioners preferred LPA 207 of 2025 which
was disposed of as withdrawn on 22.07.2025 with liberty to file
review petition;
(v) as per the learned counsel for the petitioners, no
review petition was filed;
(vi) thus, the observation of the learned Single Judge
that ‘the Patna Metro’ work should not hinder became final.
113. The Collector, Patna took up the matter, heard
all the stakeholders and thereafter, vide a reasoned order dated
28.03.2025 communicated vide memo no. 1191 dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
62/77
11.04.2025 rejected the claim of the petitioners for referring the
matter to the Authority under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act.
114. While rejecting the prayer, the Collector, Patna
held that the lands to be acquired is one-fourth of total land
(4.09 acres) while the original residential building and the
campus has access to the government roads.
115. It further held that the photographs provided by
the requisitioning authority clearly show that earlier, only the
old building and the boundary wall was present. The structures
on the basis of which the petitioners are trying to invoke Section
94 of ‘the 2013 Act ’ i.e. have been created/came up recently and
as such, the said Section is not applicable in the present case.
116. Aggrieved, the present petition filed by the writ
petitioners.
117. Meanwhile, the Award for PART-II acquisition
also was completed on 12.07.2025 and the petitioners once
again received the compensation amount of Rs. 26,64,11,611/-
on 03.10.2025 for 0.408 acre of land. ‘The Patna Metro’ took
over this land too and started work on it.
118. This Court has also gone through the
submissions put forward by the parties. While the case of the
petitioners is/are that the PART I acquisition has affected the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
63/77
structures that existed in the campus and thus the entire land
needs to be acquired for which matter ought to have been
referred under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ , the respondents
specially, ‘the Patna Metro’ stand is that at the initial stage, on
the plots that have been acquired, there existed only a boundary
wall on plot no. 86 beside the vacant land (on plot no. 66) and
new structures were created by the petitioners recently.
119. The further case of the respondents and which
has been taken note of by this Court is that the main residential
building is intact and not an inch of it has been touched. The
structures that the petitioners claim on the acquired land were
constructed recently only to further their case.
120. This Court has also not missed the stand of the
petitioners that it is not the date of intention to acquire the land
but the date of actual notification that matters. This gives
credence to the stand of the respondents that the structures came
up later only to further their cause. In that background, the
stand of the respondent ‘the Patna Metro’ has to be taken note
of that the petitioners have not attached any sanctioned map to
support their claim of ongoing construction on the land in
question.
121. However, at this stage, this Court do observe that

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
64/77
Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ do record that when any question
arise on the point whether any land proposed to be taken under
the Act form or does not form part of a house, manufactory or
building, the Collector shall refer the determination of such
question to the Authority concerned and shall not be taking
possession of such land until the question is determined. But to
make this section applicable, creating structure without any
approved plan is impermissible.
122. The Court stops at that in the particular facts and
circumstances where AWARD-I and II process stands
completed inasmuch as the petitioners went ahead and despite
their plea to refer the matter to the authority and defer the
acquisition, they received the entire compensation amount
whereafter the lands acquired and transferred to ‘the Patna
Metro’ and the present status is that the work of Rukunpura
Metro Station is at an advance stage.
123. So far as the Compensation for the said
structures is/are concerned, it has already been taken note of by
the respondents and their stand is that the Executive Engineer,
Danapur Division, Danapur has submitted the valuation report
on 16.10.2025 whereafter the matter has been referred to ‘the
DLAO, Patna’ for an appropriate decision.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
65/77
124. To conclude:
(i) the original residential building, the only structure
that existed in the entire campus has not been touched:
(ii) the structures that came up later and taken note of
during the PART-II acquisition of the land, the Executive
Engineer, Danapur Division, Danapur has submitted
valuation report on which ‘the DLAO, Patna’ has to take a
decision. This Court directs ‘the DLAO, Patna’ to immediately
take decision, if not taken yet. This has to be done in the next
eight weeks.
125. Further, when the petitioners have received the
entire compensation amount to the tune of around Rs. 69 crores,
possession has already been given to ‘the Patna Metro’ and the
work has progressed, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act ’ cannot be enforced. This Court is
constrained to record that after the Collector, Patna rejected the
claim on 28.03.2025, the petitioners preferred the present
petition. However, despite their plea in the writ petition to refer
the matter under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ which records
deferring of the acquisition process, without waiting for the
outcome of the present case, they promptly went ahead and
accepted the AWARD-II compensation amount of Rs.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
66/77
26,64,11,611 on 03.10.2025 thus facilitating the acquisition.
126. This Court cannot further take its eyes away
from the fact that the petitioners have never denied the stand of
the respondents that the acquisitions have not affected their
main building that was the only structure present on the land in
the year 2020 and it has access towards the government roads.
127. This Court reiterates that lots of water has flown
down the ganges inasmuch as:
(i) pursuant to the receipt of the compensation
amounts for the PART-I acquisition on 10/07/2024 and the
PART-II acquisition on 03/10/2025 , ‘the Patna Metro’ has
taken over the possession of the lands and the work is now
going on there and as per the respondents, is at an advance
stage;
(ii) any new development will affect its progress;
(iii) the petitioners after receiving the entire
compensation amount for the acquired land (including the 353
feet frontage on the Bailey Road) cannot be allowed to turn
around and claim that the acquisition process be stalled by
referring the matter under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’;
(iv) further, this Court cannot direct the Patna
Metro’ to consider taking over the entire plots of the petitioners

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
67/77
when it has shown its disinclination citing huge financial
implication as also no utility purpose for them.
128. This Court thus observes that:
(i) the lands have been acquired for a public purpose
(for ‘the Patna Metro’) ;
(ii) it has been acquired in accordance with law;
(iii) reasonable compensation has been given as per
‘the 2013 Act’. However, if aggrieved with the compensation
amount, the petitioners have the right to move before an
appropriate authority for the enhancement of the compensation;
(iv) the petitioners received the compensation amount
for the PART-1 acquisition on 10.07.2024 and thereafter PART-
II acquisition on 03.10.2025;
v) no part of the main residential building has been
acquired by ‘the Patna Metro’;
129. Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ mandates the
Collector recommending the matter to the Authority and till
then, the acquisition process is to be kept on hold. However, in
the present case, even prior to the passing of the order by the
Writ Court on 10.02.2025, the PART-I acquisition for ‘the
Patna Metro’ was completed on 10/07/2024 when the petitioner
received compensation amount of 42,31,79,330.00/-. This

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
68/77
followed the possession of the land and ‘the Patna Metro’
starting the work thereafter.
130. Further, after the Collector, Patna passed the
order on 28.03.2025 , though the petitioners preferred the present
writ petition, they chose not to wait for its outcome and went
ahead to collect the AWARD II compensation amount of Rs.
26,64,11,611/- on 03.10.2025. In that background, knowingly,
having accepted the AWARD amounts, the acquisition process
now stands completed.
131. So far as the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court
cited by the petitioners in Laxman Lal (supra) and Vidya Devi
(supra) are concerned, this Court can safely record that the cases
cited by the petitioners are not applicable in the present case as:
(i) it has been acquired for a public purpose (for ‘the
Patna Metro’) ;
(ii) it has been acquired in accordance with law;
(iii) reasonable compensation has been given as per
‘the 2013 Act’;
(iv) it is only after the compensation amount was
received by the petitioners following the PART-I and PART-II
acquisition that ‘the Patna Metro ’ has taken possession of the
lands and commenced work.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
69/77
132. So far as the case of Shiv Singh (supra) cited by
the petitioners is concerned, it is important to incorporate
Section 15 of ‘the 2013 Act’ which read as follows:
15 . Hearing of objections.-(1) Any
person interested in any land which has been
notified under sub-section (1) of Section 11, as
being required or likely to be required for a public
purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the
publication of the preliminary notification, object
to-
(a) the area and suitability of land
proposed to be acquired;
(b) justification offered for public
purpose;
(c) the findings of the Social Impact
Assessment report.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1)
shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the
Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of
being heard in person or by any person authorised
by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall,
after hearing all such objections and after making
such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,
either make a report in respect of the land which
has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section
11, or make different reports in respect ofdifferent
parcels of such land, to the appropriate
Government, containing his recommendations on
the objections, together with the record of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
70/77
proceedings held by him along with a separate
report giving therein the approximate cost of land
acquisition, particulars as to the number of
affected families likely to be resettled, for the
decision of that Government.
(3) The decision of the appropriate
Government on the objections made under sub-
section (2) shall be final.
133. However, the case of the petitioner no where
comes near Section 15 of ‘the 2013 Act’ warranting its
application inasmuch as the petitioners have not objected:
(i) to the area and suitability of land proposed to be
acquired;
(ii) the justification offered for public purpose and;
(iii) the findings of the Social Assessment Report.
133. With regard to the repeated claim that they have
lost access to the Bailey Road when entire 353 feet frontage was
acquired, this court observes that:
(i) they have received the compensation as per the
market rate and in line with the ‘ the 2013 Act ’ for the entire
353 feet;
(ii) while accepting the Award/ Compensation
amount, the petitioners had complete knowledge that the
AWARD amount includes the entire frontage of 353 feet. In that

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
71/77
background, having received the compensation amount which
followed the completion of acquisition process and taking over
of the land by ‘the Patna Metro’, the claim that they have lost
access to the front side stands rejected.
134. Here, the Court also records that the payment
under protest may allow them to lay claim for enhanced
compensation before an appropriate authority, the same cannot
be extended for deferring the acquisition and/or stalling the
ongoing project/ the construction of Rukunpura Rail Metro
Station.
135. So far as the case of Kerala High Court in
Afsath C. and ors. (supra) is concerned, the consistent stand of
the respondents have been that the original residential building
that was present has neither been touched nor any part of it
acquired.
136. Further, even before the petitioners preferred
CWJC No. 1868 of 2025 , they went ahead and accepted the
AWARD I compensation amount on 10.07.2024 . Once the writ
Court in its order dated 10.02.2025 clarified that ‘the Patna
Metro’ work will not be hindered, after the withdrawal of
appeal challenging the said observation, the petitioners by not
filing any review petition accepted the said observation. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
72/77
present status is that the petitioners have also received the
compensation amount for the AWARD-II on 03.10.2025 and the
acquisition process is now complete.
137. In that background, when the acquisition of the
property cannot be deferred having been acquired firstly on
10.07.2024 and secondly on 03.10.2025, the matter cannot be
sent for consideration under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ and
thus the case of Afsath C. and ors has no applicability in the
particular facts and circumstances.
138. Similarly, the State of Bihar (supra) case is also
not applicable in the present matter when even before the
Collector, Patna decided the matter on 28.03.2025, the AWARD-
I was prepared, the petitioners came forward and accepted the
compensation amount on 10.07. 2024.
139. This Court cannot further overlook the fact that
the Collector, Patna rejected the prayer of the petitioners for
referring the matter under Section 94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ . They
challenged it by filing the present writ petition. However,
without waiting for the outcome of the present case, the
petitioners once again accepted the AWARD-II compensation
amount on 03.10.2025 . In that background, the said order
cannot be made applicable in the present case either.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
73/77
140. On the other hand, the judgment cited by ‘the
Patna Metro’ of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of
Union of India and Ors. (supra) is fully applicable in the
present case. Despite the knowledge of the contents of Section
94 of ‘the 2013 Act’ they went ahead and accepted the
AWARDS/ compensation amounts which followed
acquisition/ transfer of lands to ‘the Patna Metro’ on
10.07.2024 and 03.10.2025 and the work is at an advance stage.
141. Despite the knowledge that the acceptance of the
AWARD amounts will lead to the acquisition of the land, they
received it promptly. In that background, they cannot be allowed
to have the benefit of the acquisition on the one hand while
asking for deferring its acquisition on the other.
142. So far as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation
(supra) case is concerned, this Court records that the entire
acquisition process stands completed, the land transferred to
‘the Patna Metro’ and the work of Rukunpura Metro Station
is at an advance stage. Thus, the acquisition process stands
completed.
143. In the aforesaid background, this Court observes
that the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Collector, Patna
need no interference.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
74/77
144. Having affirmed the order in question, this Court
observes that:
(i) regarding the prayer that the respondents should
consider the acquisition of the left over land, having taken note
of the fact that earlier, ‘the UDHD’ wanted its acquisition but
later withdrew it and further a large chunk of petitioners land
is/are available on the Bailey Road near the upcoming
Rukunpura Metro Station which may be for the use of State
Government, this Court allows the petitioners to submit
representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue
and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna within eight
weeks.
145. It is further recorded that if such petition is
preferred within the stipulated period of eight weeks:
(i) the Additional Chief Secretary may
seek reports from all the State government
Departments on the feasibility of acquiring the
petitioners land for public purposes;
(ii) in case, any of the Department (or
more than one Department) show inclination, the
concerned Department(s) can formally request the
Collector, Patna for taking appropriate steps in the
matter for the acquisition of the land in accordance
with law;
(iii) if , however, no department comes

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
75/77
forward and/or show inclination, this be
communicated to the petitioners and that will be
the end of the matter.
(iv) the entire process be completed
within three months from the date, the petitioners
submit representation.
146. This Court makes it clear that there is no
direction on the point of acquisition and the only observation is
to see to it as to whether any of the department and/or the
Revenue Department is/are inclined for its acquisition for public
purpose or not.
147. This Court further makes it clear that the
petitioners have been allowed to represent only because in the
opinion of the Court, when large chunk of land is available on
the Bailey Road, is adjacent to the proposed Rukunpura
Metro Rail Station, it can be of use for the State government.
However, this certainly be not construed as any direction to the
State Government and they shall be well within their right to
inform the petitioners about their disinclination to acquire the
land.
148. So far as the compensation for the structures that
according to the respondents were created later, the valuation
report has been submitted, as recorded above, ‘ the DLAO,
Patna is duty bound to take the matter to its logical conclusion

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
76/77
at an earliest. Once ‘the DLAO, Patna ’ takes a decision, the
financial benefits/compensation amount, if ordered, must be
cleared to the petitioners within a stipulated time frame.
149. Regarding the claim of the petitioners that their
land measured 415 decimal and not 4.09 dec. and the
compensation amount for plot no. 86 has been wrongly made,
this Court directs the respondents to notice all the stakeholders
viz. the petitioners, ‘the Patna Metro’ and the State
government officials and on the date fixed, the lands acquired
in plot no. 86 shall be re-measured vis a vis the payments made
to ascertain whether it matches with the
acquisition/compensation paid or not.
150. If the respondents come to the conclusion that
the land measured matches with the land acquired for which the
compensation amounts have been paid, only the measurement
report is to be handed over to the petitioners as also ‘the Patna
Metro’ . If on the other hand, the measured land exceeds the
acquired land, as claimed, an order to be passed and the
financial benefits has to follow in accordance with law.
151. Again, for the higher compensation amount
claim, the petitioners are well within their right to pursue the
remedy by moving before an appropriate authority.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
77/77
152. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
is disposed of.
153. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 12.05.2026
Uploading Date 15.05.2026
Transmission Date NA