Patna High Court
CWJC/11099/2026 of Sunita Bharti Vs The Union of India on 24 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11099 of 2026 ====================================================== Sunita Bharti Wife of Ram Ratan Kumar Bharti, Resident of Gopalpur, Ward no. 9, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11099 of 2026
======================================================
Sunita Bharti Wife of Ram Ratan Kumar Bharti, Resident of Gopalpur, Ward no. 9, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi.
2.
The Chairman, National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi.
3.
The Project Director, NHAI, Muzaffurpur.
4.
The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5.
The District Magistrate -cum- Collector, Samastipur.
6.
The District Land Acquisition Officer, Samastipur.
7.
Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Sri Krishna Nagar, Deep Shikha Road, Begusarai through its authorized Signatory.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State
:
Mr. Suresh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
:
Mr. Abhinav Alok, AC to AAG-13
For the Respondent 2&3:
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
24-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s): “to issue the writ of Certiorari to quash the erroneous acquisition andunused landof the petitioner, bearing Khata No. 48, Khesra No. 82, Area - 2 decimal situated at village Gopalpur, Block Kalyanpur, District Samastipur, which has been acquired by the respondents, for construction of the New National Highways, 119D Hajipur - Darbhanga Section, under Bhararmala Project.
ii. to issue the writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities to correct the revenue records in regard to petitioner's land, bearing Khata No. 48, Khesra No. 82, Area 2 decimal situated at village Gopalpur, Block Kalyanpur, and District Samastipur.
iii. for issuance of other order/orders which may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of this case.”
3. The petitioner owns a piece of land. “(i). Khata no. 48;
(ii) . Khesra No. 82;
(iii) . Area- 2 decimal, situated at Gopalpur;
(iv) . Village- Gopalpur;
(v) . Block- Kalyanpur;
(vi) . District- Samastipur.”
4. The first Gazette notification dated 27th January 2021 was published by the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways (henceforth for short 'the MoRTH') for construction of Bharatmala Project (Hajipur - Darbhanga, K.M. 32.00 to K.M. 65.00) it included the petitioner's land (Khesra No. 82).
5. The subsequent story of the present case is that on 23rd August 2022, the fresh Gazette notification was published by ‘the MoRTH’ and after the change of alignment, due to change in the course of river, in the fresh notification, the Khesra No. 82 stands missing.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to his knowledge, neither the award was prepared nor she/family received any compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the State as also ‘the NHAI’ jointly submit that if the case of the petitioner is that the change of alignment has led to exclusion of his land, she can very well agitate the matter before the Collector, Samastipur, who can have a report from both ‘the NHAI’ and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Samastipur and can pass a reasoned order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be filing a fresh petition in next four weeks.
9. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the Collector, Samastipur in next four weeks and if such petition with supporting documents is/are so filed, it is expected that after hearing the parties including ‘the NHAI’ and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Samastipur, a reasoned order shall be passed.
munindra/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U