Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Kr. Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11706 of 2021
======================================================
Vidyawati Kunwar, Wife of Late Nand Lal Singh, Resident of Village-Karma,
Police Station-Kudra, District-Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India
Limited, Varanasi.
3. The Assistant Project Manger DFCCIL (A.P.S.W. Under Ministry of
Railway) Mughalsarai, Varanasi.
4. The Arbitrator cum Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The Competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Kaimur at
Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11719 of 2021
======================================================
1. Shyam Mohan Singh, Son of Late Ram Kailash Singh, resident of Village-
Karma, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
2. Nagendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ram Kailash Singh, resident of Village-
Karma, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
3. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Balrup Singh, resident of Village-
Karma, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
4. Surendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Balrup Singh, resident of Village-
Karma, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India
Limited, Varanasi.
3. The Assistant Project Manger DFCCIL (A.P.S.W. Under Ministry of
Railway) Mughalsarai, Varanasi.
4. The Arbitrator cum Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
2/15
5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The Competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Kaimur at
Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11721 of 2021
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Kr. Singh, Son of Late Mohan Singh,
Resident of Village- Karma, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur at
Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India
Limited, Varanasi.
3. The Assistant Project Manger DFCCIL (A.P.S.W. Under Ministry of
Railway) Mughalsarai, Varanasi.
4. The Arbitrator cum Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The Competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Kaimur at
Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11763 of 2021
======================================================
Daya Shankar Singh, Son of Late Ramayan Singh, Resident of Village -
Karma, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through its Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Project Manager Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India
Limited, Varanasi.
3. The Assistant Project Manager DFCCIL (A.P.S.W. Under Ministry of
Railway) Mughalsarai, Varanasi.
4. The Arbitrator cum Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
3/15
5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The Competent Authority Cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Kaimur at
Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11706 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Adv.
For the State : Mr. AC to AAG-12
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11719 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Adv.
For the State : Mr. AC to AAG-12
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11721 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Adv.
For the State : Mr. AC to SC-19
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11763 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Adv.
For the State : Mr. AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date :18-04-2026
All the aforesaid four writ petitions are being
taken up together and are being disposed of by this composite
order, considering the fact that a common question is involved
in all the cases and all the writ petitions arise out of an
acquisition made under Notification No. 3078(A) dated
22.08.2019
, which was published for the acquisition of the land
for the construction of road over bridge in Mauza-Karma,
Anchal-Kudra, in the District of Kaimur.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
4/15
3. The writ petitioners, in all the aforesaid four
cases, are the land-holders having different plot numbers as
detailed in paragraph-4 of their respective writ petitions.
4. The brief facts leading to the present writ
applications are that a Six-Men Committee (in short the
‘Committee’), presided by the Collector, Kaimur, submitted an
enquiry report, dated 02.07.2019, with regard to the nature of
the lands under acquisition in Case No. 03/2019-20, which was
initiated for the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners. The
Committee described the nature of the lands of the petitioners as
agricultural lands.
5. The competent Authority-Cum-District Land
Acquisition Officer (DLAO), Kaimur (Bhabua) [in short the
‘DLAO, Kaimur’] passed an Award dated 10.06.2020,
considering the lands of the petitioners as agricultural lands,
which was also shown as the agricultural in the Committee’s
report.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order
and Award dated 10.06.2020 passed by the DLAO, Kaimur
preferred arbitration cases, which were numbered separately for
each of the writ petitioners, before the Arbitrator-Cum-
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna (in short the ‘Divisional
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
5/15
Commissioner, Patna’) mainly on the ground that the nature of
their lands was wrongly treated as agricultural lands in place of
residential, by the DLAO, Kaimur. The petitioners contended
that earlier at the time of acquisition, the lands in question were
held to be residential in nature and, therefore, holding the same
as agricultural by the Committee was arbitrary.
7. The arbitration cases preferred by all the writ
petitioners were heard and disposed of by the Divisional
Commissioner, Patna on 05.02.2021, who, directed the
Collector, Kaimur for valuation of the structure and,
accordingly, change the Award, if any construction was found.
8. In pursuance to the order passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Patna, another Six-Men Committee
inspected the lands of the petitioners on 19.02.2021 and, again,
submitted the enquiry report, treating the lands of the petitioners
as the agricultural lands. Thereafter, no order was passed by the
DLAO, Kaimur.
9. The petitioners being aggrieved by such
findings of the Committee have approached this Court by filing
the aforesaid writ petitions with a prayer to consider their lands
as residential and to pay them the compensation amount in
accordance with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
6/15
10. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that merely after 17 days of the passing of the order
of remand by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, the
Committee prepared an enquiry report, dated 19.02.2021,
without issuing any notice to the petitioners with regard to the
enquiry of the lands in question. It has been submitted that from
the perusal of the two enquiry reports, dated 02.07.2019 and
19.02.2021, it would be evident that the second enquiry report of
the Committee is a copy of the first enquiry report and,
therefore, the same has been prepared on table.
11. It has further been submitted that the Award
dated 10.06.2020 prepared with regard to the lands of the
petitioners, treating the same as agricultural lands, is apparently
bad on facts. It has next been contended that the part of the
same lands were acquired by the same respondent No. 2 on the
basis of the same Enquiry Committee, which had earlier found
the lands of the petitioners as residential and, accordingly,
compensation amounts were paid, but, later, the Committee
twice in its report dated 02.07.2019 and 19.02.2021, for the
reasons best known to them, has submitted a report treating the
lands of the petitioners as agricultural lands and the Award was
prepared accordingly. It has also been submitted on behalf of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
7/15
the petitioners that their houses still stand on their respective
plots, which have been acquired and as such, the Award is
apparently bad in law as well as on facts.
12. It has further been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that the Committee has prepared the report dated
19.02.2021 without any physical inspection and no notice in this
regard was ever issued to the petitioners. It has been contended
that the respondents have erred by treating the same plots as
agricultural, which was, in fact, notified and treated as
residential in the year 2011 itself in a different acquisition.
13. It has further been contended that the same
Enquiry Committee has treated other plots, being Plot Nos. 685,
686 and 687, which are situated near the plots of the petitioners,
as residential and has held the plots of the petitioners to be
agricultural, despite the fact that constructions are standing on
such plots.
14. It has, thus, been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that the adjudication that the lands of the petitioners
are agricultural in nature is completely baseless and is not
tenable on facts and the same is fit to be set-aside and a direction
be issued to pay the compensation, treating the lands of the
petitioners as residential.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
8/15
15. Per contra, the learned State counsels have
opposed the writ applications and have submitted that the writ
petitioners have approached this Court with illusive claims and
with misleading facts. It has been contended that the Award was
passed correctly after adopting due process of land acquisition.
The Committee, after visiting the plots of the petitioners, found
the lands of the writ petitioners under acquisition to be used for
agricultural purposes and, hence, the lands under acquisition
were treated as agricultural lands and, therefore, the Award was
passed based on such report.
16. It has further been submitted on behalf of the
State that the determination of valuation of land under
acquisition was based on the sale-deeds prior to 3 years of the
Notification under Section 20(A) of the Railway (Amendment)
Act and altogether 59 sale-deeds were found during the said
period, in which, 20 sale-deeds for agricultural land, 27 for
residential and remaining 12 for the commercial purposes were
found. Thereafter, the Committee, under its Chairman, viz., the
District Magistrate, visited the site and the said Committee,
unanimously, found some lands under residential use and some
in agricultural use and, accordingly, submitted a report dated
02.07.2019. It has been contended that the average rate of 50%
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
9/15
of total 20 agricultural sale-deeds was taken into account to the
finding of the value of compensation, which was fixed at Rs.
38,53,126.00/- per hectare to be paid to the persons like the writ-
petitioners, whose lands were identified to be agricultural lands
and in the light of such calculation and recommendation, the
Award was prepared and, therefore, no illegality can be pointed
out by the writ-petitioners towards the said report.
17. It has next been submitted that the lands of
the petitioners were found to be in agricultural use by the
Committee in the year 2021 and, therefore, the writ-petitioners
would not be entitled to question the credibility of such report in
a writ-petition as also the Award, which was prepared relying on
such enquiry report, which too was prepared after physical
verification of the lands of the petitioners.
18. It has, thus, been contended that the writ
petitions are devoid of any merit and are fit to be dismissed in
limine.
19. Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Dedicated
Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd., Varanasi (DFCCIL),
has submitted that the present writ-petitions have been filed to
consider the lands of the petitioners as residential and to pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
10/15
them compensation accordingly.
20. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2
and 3 reiterated as to how the compensation amount was
calculated taking into account the fact that the lands of the
petitioners were found to be in agricultural use and, therefore,
all the procedures, as mentioned in the concerned Acts and
Rules, have been fully and properly adopted and followed in
acquisition of the lands of the petitioners and also in assessment
of the nature of acquired lands and in determination of the
market value as per the law.
21. It has been submitted that the writ-petitioners
had approached the Divisional Commissioner, Patna (respondent
No. 4), praying to set aside the Award and to prepare fresh
Award, considering their lands to be residential. However, the
Divisional Commissioner, Patna, after hearing the parties,
disposed of the arbitration cases vide order dated 05.02.2021
with a direction to the Collector, Kaimur to inquire about the
structure and further authorized him to amend the Award, if any
change is found. It has been submitted that it was in compliance
of the order dated 05.02.2021, that the Committee made a spot
verification on 19.02.2021 in presence of some villagers and the
writ-petitioners/Raiyats/representatives and it was found that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
11/15
nature of lands in question, in all the writ petitions, were
agricultural and crop of wheat was standing on the said acquired
lands. It was on account of such report that an order was passed
on 06.03.2021 that no structure was found on the plots in
question during spot verification and the nature of the lands was
found to be agricultural.
22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has referred to Annexure-1/A, which
has been brought on record through supplementary counter
affidavit, in order to controvert the contention raised by the
petitioners that no notice was served to them prior to the spot
verification being made by the Committee.
23. It has been submitted that the proof of the
presence of the writ-petitioners or his/her representatives on the
spot at the time of verification, could not be brought earlier with
the counter affidavit and, therefore, on the direction of this
Court dated 24.11.2022, the proof of their presence at the spot is
being annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit. It has
been contended that the photography and videograpy have also
been done at the time of verification of the lands in question and
from the perusal of the same, it would be evident that the writ-
petitioners or their representatives and some other villagers as
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
12/15
well as the Members of the Committee were all present on the
spot at the time of verification.
24. It has next been submitted that one of the
writ-petitioners, namely, Shyam Mohan Singh (C.W.J.C. No.
11719 of 2021) was present on the spot, but he refused to sign
on request of the Members of Committee and the said fact has
been videographed, in which, the voice regarding refusal is
recorded.
25. In support of the aforesaid contention, the
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has produced a Pen
Drive, containing video photography of the entire exercise
carried out by the Committee and submitted that it would also
prove the fact that the writ-petitioners/his or her representatives
were present at the time of spot verification and, therefore, their
contention that they were not even noticed is absolutely false
and misleading.
26. It has been contended that such categorical
report by the Committee, which would be clear from the
photographs and the videography contained in the Pen Drive,
would suffice that the petitioners have not approached this Court
with clean hands and have tried to mislead this Court in order to
procure an order in their favour.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
13/15
27. It has, thus, been submitted that the writ-
petitions are fit to be dismissed with heavy cost.
28. Having heard the parties and taking into
account the relevant facts, especially with regard to the findings
arrived at by the Six-Men Committee, this Court, in view of the
contradictory stands of the respondents and the petitioners, was
compelled to view the videography of the spot verification
conducted by the Committee, which was handed over to this
Court in a Pen Drive.
29. This Court played the Pen Drive and on
seeing the videography, as produced by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is evident that
the Six-Men Committee had indeed made a spot verification and
from the perusal of such video that the Raiyats or their
respective representatives were present at the spot and they were
made to stand on their respective plots with the plot numbers
written on a white paper and the representatives and the Raiyats
were asked stand against the land(s) which belonged to them. It
is also evident from such video that there was no structure on
the said lands, rather wheat crop was standing on the plots and
no construction, whatsoever, was visible in an around the
plots/lands of the writ-petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
14/15
30. Taking into account the assertion made by the
State as also by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
it is evident that the lands in question belonging to the writ-
petitioners, at the time of spot verification, were being used for
agricultural purposes and, therefore, the calculation of the
compensation, taking into account the lands of the petitioners to
be in agricultural use, cannot be said to be bad.
31. This Court is also of the view that the writ-
petitioners have not come with clean hands before this Court,
especially on account of the fact that there is no structure
standing on the plots/lands of the petitioners which is quite
visible in the videography being done at the time of spot
verification and moreover, their (writ-petitioners/his or her
representatives) presence at the time of spot verification also
nullifies their contention that they were not noticed prior to such
spot verification being done by the Committee.
32. In view of the above discussions, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Six-
Men Committee, which was consistent in its findings on two
occasions, viz., in the year 2019 and the other in the year 2021.
This Court also finds from the materials available on record that
no construction/structure was found on the lands of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11706 of 2021 dt.18-04-2026
15/15
petitioners, rather wheat crop was found standing on the same
and, therefore, the findings of the Committee cannot be
questioned in a writ proceeding.
33. The present batch of writ petitions are found
to be misconceived and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
34. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 08.04.2026 Uploading Date 18.04.2026 Transmission Date N/A