Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 146 (PAT)

Lahasia Kuer v. State of Bihar

2025-02-06

ANSHUMAN

body2025
Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the State. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for setting aside the notice bearing No. 748 dated 13.06.2018, served upon the petitioner, by which the respondent authorities have demanded and directed the petitioner to return the excess payment made in comparison to the nature of the acquired land under the perceptual lease policy under the Bihar Lease Policy, 2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, vide notification No. 1333 dated 20.11.2015, a publication was made in the local newspaper, according to which the State of Bihar intended to acquire the land in question from the owners under the Bihar Land Lease Policy, 2014. After due process of law, the Bihar Land Lease Policy, 2014 was adopted with the consent of the majority of the affected people of the area through the ‘Aam Sabha’ of the village. The petitioner further submits that the land acquisition was made for the State Highway. The government fixed the amount and paid the compensation to the petitioner and others. The petitioner accepted the said amount in 2016, but subsequently, in 2018, a demand was made to refund the excess payment made to the petitioner on the ground that a Six-member Committee, after due classification of the land, found that the calculation was erroneous. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit the excess amount in the respondents' account. Further, it is submitted that according to Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LARA 2013'), a limitation is fixed such that any correction may be made within six months, but after the lapse of two years, no such correction can be made according to law. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that while it is true that the lease was prepared and payment was made to the petitioner, the State later discovered a miscalculation. Therefore, the excess amount was paid, and the issuance of the notice in this context is in accordance with the law, and the petitioner should refund the amount. 5. Therefore, the excess amount was paid, and the issuance of the notice in this context is in accordance with the law, and the petitioner should refund the amount. 5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court that the admitted position is that the land was acquired for the purpose of constructing the State Highway and the acquisition of land was made under the policy which was framed under LARA 2013 (30 of 2013). The said lease policy mentions that only clerical and mathematical errors can be rectified within six months. However, in the present case, it is not a clerical or mathematical error, as the authority, at the time of fixing compensation, initially observed that the land of the petitioner was residential in nature. But after the payment of compensation, preparation of the lease, it has been found that the land is agricultural in nature. Moreover, after a lapse of about two years from the date of the fixation of the compensation amount, the respondent authorities identified the land as agricultural in nature. Based on this, a lesser amount of compensation was recalculated. 6. As such, this Court is of the view that the District Administration, in its earlier report dated 20.06.2016, fixed the compensation amount and then framed a Six-member Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate to re-determine the compensation. The Court finds that such arbitrary action by the District Magistrate cannot be permitted in law, as this decision directly affects the petitioner. Moreover, it has not been mentioned under which provision of law such action was taken, nor was the petitioner given prior notice or information before taking such action. Hence, the decision was taken under an unknown provision of law and constitutes a gross violation of natural justice. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the Court finds merit in the petitioner’s argument, and thus the notice dated 13.06.2018, bearing No. 748 (Annexure-5), is hereby set aside. 8. Accordingly, with this direction, the Writ Petition allowed.