State cannot construct public buildings on private Raiyati land without due process of law and compensation.

The petitioners, claiming ownership of Raiyati land in District Patna, challenged an order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Collector, Patna (Respondent No. 2), which directed the construction of a Panchayat Bhavan on said land

The petitioners alleged that the order was passed without notice, without an opportunity for a hearing, and without the land being acquired or donated

Despite filing a representation on 06.12.2025 to highlight these grievances and the conduct of third parties attempting to grab the land, the authorities failed to pass any orders

The State contended that the matter involved factual disputes regarding the nature of the land which should be determined by revenue authorities

1. Whether the order directing construction on alleged private Raiyati land without notice or acquisition proceedings violated the principles of natural justice and is legally sustainable

2. Whether the Collector is obligated to dispose of pending representations regarding land title disputes before proceeding with public construction

The court applied the fundamental principle of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem), emphasizing that no adverse order regarding property rights can be passed without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard

It further relied on the administrative law principle that authorities are "duty-bound" to consider and dispose of legal objections/representations through reasoned and speaking orders

The court also implicitly acknowledged the constitutional protection of property rights, requiring formal acquisition or consent before state construction on private land

The Court observed that the petitioners had established a prima facie case for consideration, noting a total absence of notice prior to the construction order

It reasoned that while the High Court cannot resolve complex factual disputes regarding the nature of land under writ jurisdiction, the Collector is the competent authority to verify revenue records and documents

The Court found the Collector’s failure to address the petitioners' representation while proceeding with construction to be arbitrary. By staying the construction, the Court ensured that the "Rule of Law"—specifically the requirement for a fair hearing and verification of title—is applied to the "Facts" (the claim of Raiyati status) before the State alters the status quo of the property

The Court held that the construction of the Panchayat Bhavan on the subject land shall remain stayed until the Collector reaches a decision

If the land is found to be Raiyati, the Collector must modify the earlier order; otherwise, he must pass a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks of receipt of the judgment

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly