Where the State authorities demonstrate, during writ proceedings, that compensation has been paid, the High Court may dispose of the writ as infructuous while clarifying the right to seek further recourse if the payment was not actually effected. This approach affirms prior procedural practice under Indian land acquisition jurisprudence and serves as binding authority for similar disputes concerning payment of compensation under government acquisition schemes in Bihar.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/4931/2016 of Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors |
| CNR | BRHC010033062016 |
| Date of Registration | 09-03-2016 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Bihar on disposal of writs where State produces proof of payment during pendency. |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
When the State demonstrates that compensation has been paid to a petitioner in respect of land acquired decades prior, the writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous. However, the petitioner maintains the right to file a contempt petition should the payment not have actually been made. The court’s jurisdiction to dispose is predicated on official documentary proof put forward by the authorities. This ensures an expedient resolution while preserving the petitioner’s subsequent legal remedies. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner’s land was acquired in 1969-70 under the Paimar Irrigation Scheme; compensation was allegedly not paid at that time. A writ was filed for compensation with interest and at present rates. During the proceedings, the State produced documents showing payment of Rs. 5,70,000 to the petitioner in 2023. The petitioner’s counsel stated that it was unclear if payment was deposited or communicated. The court found payment prima facie established but preserved petitioner’s right to file contempt if unpaid. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Bihar dealing with similar writs/compensation disputes |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India facing disputes regarding State proof of payment during pending writ petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court clarifies that submission of official documentary proof of payment by the State can lead to writ disposal as infructuous, even if the petitioner disputes actual receipt.
- Lawyers should ensure precise documentation regarding both payment and communication thereof, since disposal does not preclude contempt proceedings if payment is not realized.
- Confirmation of payment must ideally include communication to the beneficiary.
- Preservation of the right to contempt proceedings is reaffirmed where there is discrepancy between official State records and petitioner’s receipt.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the main relief sought: mandamus for compensation payment for land acquired under a government irrigation scheme in 1969-70, including with interest and at prevailing rates.
- The State, via supplementary affidavit, submitted that payment of Rs. 5,70,000 was made on 28.06.2023.
- The petitioner’s lawyer submitted uncertainty whether actual deposition in the account occurred.
- The court accepted, on the basis of the State’s version and official documentation, that payment was made.
- The writ was disposed of accordingly, with the express reservation that the petitioner could file a contempt petition if, in fact, payment was not credited to his account or properly communicated.
- This approach harmonizes disposal of infructuous writs on factual satisfaction of relief sought, while preserving the efficacy of contempt jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought mandamus for payment of compensation for land acquired under the “Paimar Irrigation Scheme” in 1969-70, with present rates, statutory and penal interest.
- Contended that no compensation had been paid since acquisition.
- At hearing, counsel stated that clarity was lacking whether payment was actually deposited or communicated to the petitioner.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted, with supplementary counter affidavit, that payment of Rs. 5,70,000 was issued to the petitioner on 28.06.2023.
- Asserted that documents evidenced full payment as per government records.
Factual Background
Petitioner’s land was acquired by the State of Bihar in 1969-70 under the Paimar Irrigation Scheme. No compensation was paid at the time of acquisition. Decades later, the petitioner sought compensation via writ in the Patna High Court, seeking not only the original compensation but also statutory and penal interest and payment at the prevalent rate as per current acquisition circulars. During the pendency, the State produced a supplementary affidavit showing that Rs. 5,70,000 was paid to the petitioner in June 2023. The petitioner’s counsel questioned whether payment was actually credited to his account or if he had been informed.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment proceeds on the basis of writ jurisdiction (Articles 226/227 Constitution of India).
- Statutes referenced: Land Acquisition statutes and administrative circulars regarding compensation (not detailed in the judgment).
- No detailed statutory interpretation or reading down/up of any provision is discussed in the text.
Procedural Innovations
- Preservation of right to file contempt against the responsible authority if the payment, though officially recorded, has not actually been made — recognized as a procedural safeguard within writ disposal orders.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing High Court approach for disposing writs as infructuous when State produces documentary proof of payment pending litigation, while preserving right to contempt if payment not actually made.