The Patna High Court has determined that former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar is entitled to compensation for a land parcel acquired by the Bihar government. The court’s decision also annulled a district collector’s order that had cancelled the revenue records associated with the land. This ruling was reported by the Press Trust of India.

The land in question spans 0.56 acres and is located in the Mainpura locality of Patna, within the Phulwari revenue area. It was acquired by the state government in 1976 for the purpose of constructing a drain. Kumar stated that neither she nor her late mother, Indrani Devi, who passed away in 2002, had received any compensation for the property.

Details of the Court’s Order

On October 6, Justice Khatim Reza issued an order that overturned the collector’s decision from 2023, which had cancelled the jamabandi, or revenue record, related to the land. The court reinstated the revenue record in the name of Indrani Devi. According to the court’s findings, the original landlord had transferred the land to Gauri Charan Singh in 1941, and subsequent transactions were conducted through registered sale deeds.

Indrani Devi acquired the land in 1965, and her name was duly recorded in the revenue documents. Following her death, Meira Kumar’s name was added based on a registered will. The court noted that any proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act necessitate that the estate be legally vested in the state government.

The court pointed out that the state had not provided any notification under Section 3 or 3A to demonstrate such vesting concerning the disputed land. Consequently, the collector lacked the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 4(h) without establishing the necessary legal framework.

Implications of the High Court’s Findings

The High Court emphasised that the provisions of Section 4(h) are supplementary and cannot be invoked independently of the main regulations governing the vesting of estates in the state. In its ruling, the court acknowledged that Kumar had occupied the land for over 60 years. It stated that if the state intended to contest a title or settlement established prior to 1946, it should pursue the matter through a competent Civil Court rather than resorting to summary cancellation via revenue proceedings.

The court described the collector’s order as “illegal without jurisdiction” and affirmed that the revenue records could not be annulled through such proceedings. Additionally, the High Court referenced a Supreme Court order, affirming Kumar’s entitlement to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The court also noted that the collector had primarily relied on an entry in the land survey records that labelled the plot as ‘Gairmazarua Aam’ and ‘Pichhali Nadi’. However, this entry alone did not constitute proof of ownership. As a result, the High Court restored the land’s revenue record in Indrani Devi’s name and set aside the collector’s cancellation order, confirming Kumar’s right to compensation under the 2013 legislation.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share