CWJC/7209/2026 of Dasarath Singh Vs The State of Bihar on 23 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 23-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs: “I. In the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 24.08.2019 passed jointly by learned L.R.D.C and Sub- Divisional Officer, Aurangabad in title verification case No. 12/2019-2020 whereby and where under the Raiyati claim of the petitioner has been recommended to be rejected based on the report of Circle Officer Barun and forwarded the same to the Add. Collector, Aurangabad.

II. In the nature of certiorari also to setting aside the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in the title verification case No. 12/2019-20 by the Collector, Aurangabad whereby the order of learned L.R.D.C & S.D.O, Aurangabad dated 24.08.2019 passed in aforesaid mentioned case has been confirmed.

III. In the nature of mandamus also directing and commanding the respondent authorities for payment of compensation amount to the petitioner for the land which has been acquired by the respondents.

IV. For issuance of any other relief or relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in dispute is part of the land situated in Mauza- Barun, P.S. Barun, District- Aurangabad bearing Thana No.155, Khata No.171, Khesara No.1419 area 175 Square metre. The said land is recorded in Khatiyan as ‘gairmajarua malik’ land and its ex- landlord had issued kabooliyat bandobasti with respect to the land of Plot No.1419 along with other plots in the name of Dukhan Ram, S/o Deodhari Ram, on 17.01.1950 and put the settlee in their possession and to recognize the settlee as raiyat, the demand was opened in the name of Dukhan Ram and the rent receipt was issued in his favour. After the death of Dukhan Ram, the land came in possession through an amicable partition among his sons, namely, Shiv Prasad Singh also got his share in the property. The father of the petitioner i.e. Shiv Prasad Singh had four sons and the land came in the possession of the petitioner through amicable partition. Subsequently, for the purpose of construction of road over bridge on NH-2, the National Highway Authority took steps for acquisition of lands, in relation to that the Anchal Adhikari, Barun Anchal, for the payment of compensation to the land owners initiated title verification proceedings against various land owners, whose land/building were likely to be acquired for construction of road over bridge.

4. Thereafter, a Title Verification Case No.12/2019- 2020 was instituted against the petitioner to ascertain the title over the land. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner, he appeared before the Anchal Adhikari and produced the documents on 30.07.2019, creating rayati interest in the land in question and also produced rent receipt issued in the named of his ancestors. The Circle Officer, Barun, without ascertaining the facts and circumstances and ignoring the evidences brought on record, recommended not to award raiyati claim to the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned L.R.D.C., Aurangabad, who also rejected the raiyati claim of the petitioner, whereby the learned Collector, Aurangabad has also confirmed the recommendation and rejected the raiyati claim of the petitioner, leaving no options to the petitioner to approach this Court and to file a writ application.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the dispute in the present writ application is one of those where at the time of payment of compensation on account of accusation made by the State of Bihar, the title of the petitioner is being challenged.

7. It has been the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the jamabandi in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner was created in the year 1955 and till date the same continued. It was pointed out that the land was given in favour of petitioner through a bandobasti and thereafter they had come in peaceful possession over the same and had continued for more than 70 years now.

8. The State has usurped the powers of a Civil Court by initiating the cancellation of longstanding jamabandi in favour of the petitioner and his ancestors through a summary proceeding. It has been submitted that the petitioner has brought to the knowledge of the authorities, the documents on which they relied to confirm their title, however, the authorities ignored the same and they have gone ahead and has held that the land was entered in the khatiyan as ‘gairmajarua malik’.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that similarly situated land holders, whose land were also entered as gairmajarua malik, were paid compensation and the petitioner was discriminated.

10. Learned counsel for the parties has relied upon the case of “Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 PLJR, 584” is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

11. One paragraph of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) is to be taken note of :- “The result of these three progressive stages is that if the State wants the petitioners’ lands or the lands on which the petitioners have been residing for last 50 years, they must pay due compensation and take action in accordance with the provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act. If they intend to cancel the Jamabandi then it is for them to move the Civil Court for a declaration that the alleged settlement and/or Jamabandi is illegal and cannot be accepted and let the title of the State be so declared but till such time the dispute is resolved, the petitioners cannot be evicted by the State in any manner nor can just compensation for acquisition be denied.”

12. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment on the subject, it is clear that longstanding jamabandi cannot be canceled through a summary proceeding and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the compensation which ought to have been paid on account of the long period of possession over the said land.

13. The State, if aggrieved by the fact that the land could not have been transferred in favour of the petitioner, the only remedy which the State had was to move before a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction for getting the entries and the subsequent sale deed and get the settlement annulled.

14. In view of the aforesaid observation, the writ application is allowed.

15. The order dated 24.08.2019 passed jointly by the learned L.R.D.C. and Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad in Title Verification Case No.12/2019-2020 and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad in Title Verification Case No.12/2019-20 are hereby quashed.

16. It is directed that the compensation amount admissible to the petitioner shall be kept in a separate account by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar.

17. It is further directed that if the State has filed a title suit, the District Court shall ensure that the same is decided within a period of one year.

18. The petitioner is also given liberty to pray for release of the amount, if the title suit is not decided within a year from today, especially on account of non-cooperation of the plaintiff-State of Bihar.

manoj/- (Sourendra Pandey, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.06.2026 Transmission Date NA