Acceptance of compensation and transfer of possession precludes subsequent invocation of Section 94 for whole-property acquisition.

The petitioners are co-owners of "Ramgarh Kothi," an ancestral property admeasuring approximately 4.09–4.15 acres along Bailey Road, Patna

The State initiated land acquisition for the Rukunpura Metro Station in two phases: Part-I (0.6337 acres) and Part-II (0.408 acres), totaling 1.0417 acres—approx. one-fourth of the landholding

The petitioners received compensation for Part-I (₹42.31 Crores) on 10.07.2024 and for Part-II (₹26.64 Crores) on 03.10.2025

Petitioners filed a representation under Section 94 of the 2013 Act, demanding the State acquire the entire 4.15-acre property, alleging that the partial acquisition (specifically of the frontage/internal roads and certain structures) rendered the remaining residential house unviable

The Collector, Patna, rejected this on 28.03.2025, finding the ancestral house untouched and the new structures on acquired land were built after the acquisition notice to fraudulently invoke Section 94

1. Whether the Collector, Patna, lacked jurisdiction to decide the Section 94 application and was instead mandated to refer the matter to the Competent Authority

2. Whether the acquisition of the property's frontage and partial structures necessitated the acquisition of the entire 4.15-acre holding under Section 94 of the 2013 Act

3. Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the acquisition after having accepted the total compensation of approx. ₹69 Crores

Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which prohibits the partial acquisition of a house or building if the owner desires the whole to be acquired, provided the land is reasonably required for the full/unimpaired use of the house

The doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate, as articulated in Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022), which prevents a party from enjoying the fruits of an instrument (compensation) while simultaneously questioning its validity

Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) regarding the finality of acquisition upon payment and taking of possession

The court found that the petitioners' main ancestral residence remained structurally untouched and fully functional with existing access to government roads, thus not satisfying the "unimpaired use" threshold of Section 94

Regarding the structures on the acquired land, the court noted that aerial photography from 2021 showed only a boundary wall, concluding that the petitioners erected makeshift structures after the 2020 acquisition intent became public to create an artificial ground for a Section 94 reference

Applying the principle of estoppel, the court held that by accepting ₹69 Crores and allowing the Patna Metro to take possession and reach an advanced construction stage, the petitioners waived their right to stall the process for a Section 94 reference

The court granted limited relief: (i) The DLAO is directed to decide on compensation for recently demolished structures within 8 weeks; (ii) The State must conduct a joint re-measurement of Plot No. 86 to ensure compensation matches the actual area acquired; and (iii) Petitioners may represent to the Revenue Department for the acquisition of the remainder of the land for other public purposes, though the State is not bound to agree. Writ petition disposed