The Patna High Court restored the disputed land record and held Meira Kumar entitled to compensation. The ruling limits summary revenue action where the state cannot establish legal vesting.
Patna,Oct 21, 2026 15:58 IST
The Patna High Court has ruled that former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar is entitled to compensation for land acquired by the Bihar government and quashed a district collector's order cancelling its revenue record, news agency Press Trust of India reported.
The 0.56-acre plot in Patna's Mainpura locality, under the Phulwari revenue area, was acquired by the state government in 1976 to build a drain. Kumar said neither she nor her mother, Indrani Devi, who died in 2002, had received compensation for the land.
In an order dated October 6, Justice Khatim Reza set aside the collector's 2023 order cancelling the jamabandi, or revenue record, linked to the land. The court restored the record in the name of Indrani Devi.
According to the order, as reported by PTI, the erstwhile landlord had settled the land in favour of Gauri Charan Singh in 1941. His descendants later transferred it through registered sale deeds.
Indrani Devi purchased the land in 1965, following which her name was entered in the revenue records. Kumar's name was also entered on the basis of a registered will after her mother's death.
Justice Reza held that proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act depended on an estate being vested in the state government under the law.
"There is no notification produced under Section 3 or 3A by the State during the present proceeding and earlier proceeding" to establish such vesting in respect of the disputed land, the court said. It added that the collector had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 4(h) without first establishing the required vesting.
The court said the provisions of Section 4(h) were "ancillary in character" and could not be invoked independently of the main provisions governing the vesting of estates in the state.
Noting that the "petitioner has been on the land for over 60 years", the court said, "If the State wishes to challenge a pre-1946 title or settlement, the proper remedy is to approach a competent Civil Court rather than executing a summary cancellation via revenue proceedings."
The court described the collector's order as "illegal without jurisdiction" and ruled that the revenue records could not be cancelled through such proceedings.
Referring to a Supreme Court order, the High Court held that Kumar was entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The court also observed that the collector had relied mainly on an entry in the land survey records describing the plot as 'Gairmazarua Aam' and 'Pichhali Nadi', although the entry was not, by itself, proof of ownership.
The High Court, therefore, restored the land's revenue record in Indrani Devi's name, set aside the collector's cancellation order and held that Kumar was entitled to compensation under the 2013 law.
- Ends