High Court lacks writ jurisdiction to declare land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.

The petitioners, claiming ownership of land in Mauza-Dujra, Patna, sought a declaration that land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1961 (Case No. 63 of 1961-62) had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

The dispute arose when the Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC) issued a letter on 16.05.2026 for the construction of "Prime Minister Ekta Mall" and commenced demolition of existing structures on the land without prior notice

The PMC contended that the petitioners failed to approach the proper forum and failed to implead a necessary party, the Buddha Grih Nirmaan Sahyog Samiti Limited

1. Whether the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, is the appropriate forum to declare the lapse of land acquisition proceedings involving disputed questions of fact

2. Whether the demolition action by the Patna Municipal Corporation complied with the principles of natural justice

Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which stipulates that proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if an award was made five years prior to the 2013 Act but physical possession was not taken or compensation was not paid

The principle of Audi Alteram Partem (natural justice), requiring a right to be heard before coercive state action

The established judicial restraint under Article 226 regarding "disputed questions of fact" that require evidentiary examination

The Court reasoned that determining whether a land acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) requires a factual inquiry into possession and compensation payment—matters necessitating the verification of documents and evidence

Such an exercise cannot be performed in writ jurisdiction; instead, the "Collector" is the competent authority to adjudicate these facts

The Court noted that the petitioners raised "jumbled and disputed questions of facts" and failed to join a necessary party, making the writ petition untenable in its current form

Acknowledging the PMC’s admission regarding the potential breach of natural justice during demolition, the Court found it necessary to provide interim protection while directing the petitioners to the statutory authority

The Collector is directed to implead the necessary cooperative society and pass a reasoned order within three weeks after hearing all parties; a status quo is to be maintained and no coercive action taken against the petitioners until final adjudication by the Collector