IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6877 of 2026 ====================================================== Jay Ram Singh @ Jay Ram Ram Son - Late Dukhan Ram @ Dukhan Singh, R/o of village Mastul Barun, P.S-Barun, Dist - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Collector, Aurangabad. 2. The District Collector, Aurangabad, Dis-Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad, Dis Aurangabad. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Dis - Aurangabad. 5. The Competent Authority cum Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, Dis - Aurangabad. 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Barun Anchal, Dis - Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (07) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 18-08-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2020 & 18.12.2020 passed by learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Aurangabad and Learned L.R.D.C., Aurangabad respectively in title verification case No. 11/2019-2020 whereby and where under the Raiyati claim of the petitioner has been recommended to be Patna High Court CWJC No.6877 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 2/5 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. 11/2019-20 by the Collector, Aurangabad whereby the order of learned S.D.O. and L.R.D.C, Aurangabad dated 17.12.2020 & 18.12.2020 respectively 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. The land details of the present case stands recorded in paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition which read as under: Patna High Court CWJC No.6877 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 3/5 Mauza - Barun P.S. - Barun District - Aurangabad Thana No. - 155 Khata No. - 171 Khesara No. - 1419 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the kabooliyat bandobasti was made on 17.01.1950 in the name of Dukhan Ram by the ex-landlord and the petitioner is the son of Dukhan Ram. 5. Further, submission is that the settlement paper was also issued way back in the year 1955-56 and after the death of the father, the family under amicable partition came to be in peaceful possession of the land. 6. Recently, the Government decided to construct a Road Over Bridge on the National Highway-2 and steps were taken under National Highway Act, 1956. It seems that after the land verification case no. 11 of 2019-2020 instituted, they changed their track and though the matter remained pending for years, on 09.05.2025, the Collector, Aurangabad disposed it of rejecting the claim on the ground that no document has been produced to support the said bandobasti by the said ex-landlord. Patna High Court CWJC No.6877 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 4/5 (Annexure P/7 to the aggrieved petition) 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar situated person relating to same mauja moved before this Court in CWJC No. 7209 of 2026 (Dasrath Singh vs. State and Ors.). This was taken up and disposed of by the Bench of this Court on 23.06.2026. Learned counsel took this Court to paragraph no. 6 onwards which read as under: 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. 8. The submission is that he also deserves the same relief. 9. Learned State Counsel though armed with the counter affidavit supporting the stand taken by the Collector, Arungabad, he concedes that the order in question relates to the same mauja/land and acquisition of Road Over Bridge for the NH-2 . 10. Considering the submissions put forward by the parties as also the order passed by the coordinate bench on Patna High Court CWJC No.6877 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 5/5 23.06.2026 in the case of Dasrath Singh (supra), this Court has no reason to take a different route and in the light of the observations made in paragraph nos. 6 to 18 hereby set aside the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad allowing the State respondent to move before the Competent Civil Court for the redressal of the grievances. 11. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. ankita/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U