Patna High Court - Orders
Krishna Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2026
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7505 of 2025
======================================================
Krishna Ray Son of Bhikari Ray, Resident of Village- Vaishali, P.S- Vaishali,
District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Land Reform and Revenue
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Vaishali.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali.
4. The Circle Officer, Vaishali.
5. Madan Mahto Son of Late Sivdutt Mahto, Resident of Village- Vaishali, P.S-
Vaishali, District- Vaishali.
6. Virendra Mahto Son of Late Sivdutt Mahto, Resident of Village- Vaishali,
P.S- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.
7. Suredra Mahto Son of Late Sivdutt Mahto, Resident of Village- Vaishali,
P.S- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akshay Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Madhav Pd. Yadav, GP-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026Heard Mr.Akshay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ, in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondent authorities immediately to pay the petitioner the rest amount of compensation for the land of the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.7505 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026 2/4 measuring 02 Decimals pertaining to Mouza- Harpur Bsasant, Thana No.-46, Khata No.- 02, Khesra No. 361, District-
Vaishali which was/has been acquired by the respondents along with other lands for construction of the "Buddha Samyak Darshan Museum and Smriti Stup";
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner interest for the period the amount of compensation has not been paid or is not paid to the petitioner;
(iii) any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may require and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be issued.
3. The matter relates to mauza-Harpur Bsasant, khata no. 02, kheshra no. 361 (area 6 decimals) under circle and district-Vaishali. It was taken over/acquired for the construction of "Buddha Samyak Darshan Museum and Smriti Stupa".
4. The contention is that though compensation was Patna High Court CWJC No.7505 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026 3/4 granted only for four decimals, out of 06 decimals and for the rest 0.2 decimals, he is running from pillar to post forcing him to file present petition. Though, he acknowledges in paragraph- 15 that the State respondents have taken steps against the respondent nos. 05 to 07 who have wrongly benefited so far as 0.2 decimals is concerned vide Certificate Case No. 01 of 2018-
19.
5. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the State respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 duly signed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali and the contention is that in para- 4(iv) is/are that though payment for four decimals land was made to the petitioner. The report submitted by the revenue authorities show that since the register recorded the names of Madan Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Birendra Mahto, the payment for two decimals was made to them. It further records that process of recovery of the money is going on.
6. Having heard the parties and perusing the records, this Court has taken note of the fact that against the payment of . 02 decimals land of the petitioner, the authorities have taken proper steps and in continuation of that, the Certificate Case No. 01 of 2018-19 has been preferred.
7. In that background, direction is given to the Patna High Court CWJC No.7505 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2026 4/4 Certificate Officer, Vaishali to take steps and ensure that the Certificate Case No. 01 of 2018-19 is taken to its logical conclusion, if still not concluded within the period of six months from the date the copy of the order is received in his/her office.
8.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/-
U