Patna HC Orders Bihar To Pay Rs 2 Lakh Interim Compensation After Officials Helped Demolish Man’s Home Beyond DCLR’s Possession Order

The petitioner claimed that he had occupied and built a dwelling house on a portion of jointly held land following an oral family partition.

Respondent No. 7 disputed that claim and obtained an order from the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) directing delivery of possession in his favour.

The petitioner appealed and had already instituted Title Suit No. 357 of 2014 concerning the property.

On 13 January 2016, while the appeal was pending, the petitioner’s house was demolished during the delivery of possession; he alleged that the State authorities facilitated the demolition without notice or lawful authority.

The petitioner sought restoration of possession and compensation.

Article 226 ordinarily does not permit summary adjudication of complex disputes concerning title, possession, or partition, particularly where those matters are pending before a competent civil court; Sohan Lal v. Union of India, (1957) 1 SCC 439, limits mandamus against a private party for recovery of immovable property absent established State collusion.

Section 4(5) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 requires the competent authority to close proceedings and leave the parties to the civil court when a complex question of title arises; Maheshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2014 (3) PLJR 281, and Rina Devi v. State of Bihar, 2014 SCC OnLine Pat 6828, explain that the Act’s summary jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate complex title disputes.

Revenue and khatiyan entries do not, by themselves, create or extinguish title.

Articles 21 and 300A protect the right to shelter and property from deprivation without authority of law; demolition requires lawful authority and due procedure, and arbitrary State action may warrant compensation.

The competing claims rested on an alleged oral partition on one side and a sale deed, khatiyan, and revenue records on the other; their resolution required evidence in the pending title suit.

The Court therefore declined to grant possession through writ jurisdiction and left that question to the civil court.

The compensation claim was distinct from the title dispute: the DCLR’s order directed delivery of possession but did not expressly authorize demolition, and the absence of a stay in the appeal did not supply that authority.

The Court also found that the State’s presence, municipal provision of a JCB, and deployment of police personnel indicated facilitation, rather than mere passive observation.

The assertion that the structure was dilapidated did not justify demolition without lawful authority, proper enquiry, or valid notice.

It allowed the compensation claim, directing the Chief Secretary, Bihar, to pay interim compensation of ₹2,00,000 within three months and arrange an impartial assessment of further damages.

Any decision that no further compensation is payable must be reasoned, follow a hearing, and comply with law; any balance found payable is to be disbursed within a further four months.

The writ petition was partly allowed.