Patna High Court Criticizes Arbitrary Road Construction On Private Raiyati Land; Directs District Magistrate To Personally Ensure Lawful Acquisition
The Court pulled up district officials for administrative highhandedness and ordered the District Magistrate to personally ensure proper land acquisition and payment of just compensation.
Expressing strong displeasure over the arbitrary functioning of district administrative authorities, the Patna High Court observed that constructing a village road on private raiyati land without serving any notice, initiating acquisition proceedings, or paying compensation reflects the highest degree of arbitrariness.
The Court criticized higher district officials for their passive inaction, noting that it became clear from the documents that neither the land had been acquired, nor had compensation been paid to him.
The Bench of Justice Rana Vikram Singh observed, "In the instant case without giving any kind of notice to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 started constructing village road over his Raiyati land which appears to be totally against the settled principle of law. When the petitioner filed representations highlighting this illegal act of the respondents, even the higher authorities of the district did not pay any heed to it and by this conduct they impliedly supported the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and other persons to get the village road constructed over Raiyati land of the petitioner which amounts to gross violation of the petitioner’s legal and statutory right."
Advocate Diwakar Upadhyaya appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Arvind Ujjwal appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The petitioner was the lawful owner in possession of a piece of raiyati land situated in Bhagalpur district, which had been in his family’s peaceful enjoyment for generations. During a subsequent survey operation, a clerical error crept into the record-of-rights (Khatian), whereby the petitioner's ancestral property was erroneously recorded in the name of the State of Bihar (Bihar Sarkar). Upon discovering this cloud over his title, the petitioner instituted a title suit before the learned Munsif for declaration of his right, title, interest, and for the correction of the wrong revenue entry.
The trial court initially dismissed the suit, prompting the petitioner to prefer a title appeal before the Additional District Judge. The appellate court subsequently allowed the appeal, categorically holding that the land was raiyati in nature and belonged exclusively to the petitioner's family, a decree that attained finality as the State did not prefer any further appeal.
However, taking undue advantage of the erroneous survey entry, the local administrative authorities authorized the construction of a village road over the said land. Despite persistent protests and several written representations preferred by the petitioner before various authorities, including the Executive Engineer and the District Magistrate, his grievances fell on deaf ears and the highhanded construction continued unabated without any formal acquisition.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner contended that the respondent authorities acted with gross arbitrariness and highhandedness by constructing a public road over private raiyati land without initiating any acquisition proceedings or paying any compensation. It was argued that the administrative authorities completely ignored the binding decree of the competent civil court, which had already settled the question of title in the petitioner's favour, thereby directly infringing upon his legal and statutory rights to enjoy his property peacefully.
Conversely, the State resisted the claims by submitting that the authorities had initially proceeded with the road construction under a bona fide belief that the land belonged to the State, given that the trial court had originally dismissed the petitioner's suit. It was further contended that since the petitioner's initial representations were submitted just prior to the passing of the appellate court's decree, the authorities could not take cognizance of the altered legal status of the land at that material time.
Observations of the Court
The High Court observed that the petitioner’s right, title, and interest over the subject land stood absolute and undisputed by virtue of the final decree passed by the competent appellate court.
The Court noted with serious concern that the State, despite its sovereign power of eminent domain, could not forcibly take over private property for public welfare without strictly adhering to the due process of law and providing a plausible explanation for any deviation. The conduct of the district authorities in allowing the construction without serving any notice, initiating acquisition proceedings, or disbursing compensation was found to smack of the highest degree of arbitrariness.
The Court further admonished the higher district authorities for their passive inaction, which impliedly countenanced the illegal encroachments committed by subordinate officers.
"It also becomes clear from the documents and arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that neither the land has been acquired nor compensation has even been paid to him. When the land has not been acquired following the due process then there arises no question of payment of any compensation. It also smacks off the highest degree of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents", the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court directed the District Magistrate to personally investigate the matter on the grounds, verify the revenue records alongside the civil court's decree, and ensure that no further construction takes place without formal land acquisition and payment of just compensation.
Cause Title: Uttam Jha v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7953 of 2026]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Diwakar Upadhyaya
Respondents: Advocates Arvind Ujjwal and Upendra Pratap Singh