Meira Kumar entitled to compensation under 2013 law for land acquired for Patna drain in 1976, Patna HC rules

The petitioner claimed through her mother, Smt. Indrani Devi, an interest in 18 kathas 10 dhurs of land acquired by the State in 1976 in Land Acquisition Case No. 50 of 1975–76 for construction of a drain.

She sought compensation, asserting that the land had been settled with her predecessor in 1941 and that her mother’s Jamabandi had been restored by the High Court in 1994.

The Collector subsequently cancelled the petitioner’s Jamabandi by order dated 12 April 2023, describing the land as Ghairmazarua Aam and “Pichhali Nadi.”

The petitioner challenged that order by amendment.

A Three-Member Committee had earlier reported that the settlement was from 1941.

The petitioner’s writ petition had initially been allowed in 2023, but the Division Bench remanded it because the 2023 cancellation order had not been considered; operation of the earlier judgment was stayed.

1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 to cancel the petitioner’s Jamabandi, including where the claimed settlement pre-dated 1 January 1946 and no vesting notification was produced.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act for the land acquired in 1976, in light of the asserted non-payment of compensation.

Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 empowers the Collector to inquire into and annul certain transfers made after 1 January 1946 to defeat the Act, cause loss to the State, or obtain higher compensation; an annulment order requires confirmation by the State Government.

Relying on Prem Manjari v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 Pat 550, the Court treated Section 4(h) as ancillary to the vesting provisions in Sections 3 and 4, and held that its exercise depends on vesting of the estate in the State.

The Court also referred to Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, including its interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: non-payment does not by itself cause lapse where possession has been taken, but the statutory compensation consequences may apply in the circumstances set out in that provision.

The Court found no Section 3 vesting notification or other material establishing vesting of the disputed land in the State, and held that the Collector therefore lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 4(h).

It also accepted the Committee’s finding that the predecessor’s settlement dated from 1941, before the statutory cut-off, and concluded that the Collector could not cancel the Jamabandi through the proceeding in question.

On compensation, the Court relied on Indore Development Authority and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, treating the compensation as unpaid.

The writ application was allowed.