The Patna High Court has strongly criticized the district administration for permitting the construction of a village road on privately owned raiyati land without following the procedure prescribed by law. Observing that the authorities neither initiated land acquisition proceedings nor paid compensation to the landowner, the Court described the administrative action as a clear instance of arbitrariness and directed the District Magistrate to personally oversee compliance with the law.

Justice Rana Vikram Singh observed that public authorities cannot enter upon or utilize private property for development projects without first following the statutory process of acquisition. The Court further remarked that the failure of senior district officials to address the petitioner's repeated complaints reflected administrative indifference and effectively allowed the alleged illegal construction to continue.

The dispute arose from land situated in Bihar's Bhagalpur district, which the petitioner claimed had remained in his family's possession for generations. During a survey operation, however, the property was mistakenly recorded in the revenue records as belonging to the State of Bihar. Challenging this error, the petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and correction of the revenue entry.

Although the Trial Court initially dismissed the suit, the appellate court later ruled in the petitioner's favour, declaring the land to be private raiyati property belonging to his family. As the State did not challenge the appellate decree, the finding attained finality.

Despite the civil court's decision, local authorities proceeded with the construction of a village road over the land. The petitioner alleged that no notice was issued, no acquisition proceedings were commenced, and no compensation was offered before the work began. He further submitted that several representations made to the Executive Engineer, District Magistrate, and other authorities failed to elicit any corrective action.

Opposing the writ petition, the State argued that the authorities had initially believed the land to be government property because of the earlier revenue entry and the Trial Court's dismissal of the civil suit. It was also contended that the petitioner's initial representations had been submitted before the appellate court pronounced its judgment, and therefore the authorities were unaware of the subsequent change in the legal position.

After examining the record, the High Court held that the petitioner's ownership had already been conclusively established by the appellate court's decree. It observed that even when land is required for a public purpose, the State cannot take possession of private property without adhering to the statutory acquisition procedure and ensuring payment of lawful compensation.

The Court found that the authorities had failed to issue any notice, commence acquisition proceedings, or compensate the petitioner before allowing the road construction. Such conduct, the Court observed, demonstrated a complete disregard for the petitioner's legal and statutory rights.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the District Magistrate to personally examine the matter, verify the relevant revenue records along with the civil court's decree, and ensure that no further construction is carried out unless the land is lawfully acquired in accordance with the applicable legal procedure and appropriate compensation is paid.

Case: Uttam Jha v. State of Bihar & Others, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7953 of 2026.