Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been deprived from their rightful claim of due compensation for the land, which has been acquired for the purpose of for construction of a project, namely, Extradosed Cable Bridge Over River Ganga from Sabalpur NH 30 and Bidupur NH 103 and approach road. The petitioners are concerned for due payment of compensation in respect of his land appertaining to Plot No.2907, Khata No.645.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioners himself are responsible for not receiving due compensation. Petitioners have not denied the fact that other persons in the vicinity have not been paid the due compensation. Petitioners have themselves delayed and have directly approached this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard the parties.

6. It is commonly seen that the officers having quasi judicial power on their administrative side often delay in Patna High Court CWJC No.17470 of 2021(6) dt.16-02-2026 3/10 considering the representation filed by the aggrieved person or they deliberately delay to even adjudicate those cases where they exercise their adjudicatory power, while, it is well settled principle of law that High Courts should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious remedy is available. Taking into the circumstances of the present case where fundamental/constitutional right of a citizen is infringed, this Court must not fail to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is also well settled principle of law that every administrative action in want of reason is not sustainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow:

Patna High Court CWJC No.17470 of 2021(6) dt.16-02-2026 4/10 judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision- making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(e) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants‟ faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor32).

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of Patna High Court CWJC No.17470 of 2021(6) dt.16-02-2026 5/10 fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija vs. Spain33 EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford34, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions."

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

8. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in LL 2021 SC 495, paragraphs no. 19 and 28 would be relevant in this regard, which is as under:-

9. The principle of alternative remedies and its exceptions was also reiterated in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021). In State of HP v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd & Anr. , reported in (2005) SCC 6 499 this Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court if the taxing authorities have acted beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:

10. It is also to be taken note of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which tends to safeguard the invaluable right to property.

11. As per the constitutional mandate also, the State cannot disposes a citizen of his property except in accordance with law and procedure prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC 569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said judgment , which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;

12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 , however, it continued to be a human right [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A , can be inferred in that Article. [ K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , (2011) 9 SCC 1"

13. In such circumstances, when the question of right Patna High Court CWJC No.17470 of 2021(6) dt.16-02-2026 9/10 to property as per the provision of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India comes to the knowledge of this Court, this Court has no alternative than to direct the concerned authority to forthwith take action and see that the grievance of the petitioners is redressed well within a period of one week in accordance with law from the date of communication of this order.

14. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, is directed to call for the revenue records, in respect of the lands acquired, from the office of the Circle Officer concerned

15. The Circle Officer is directed to forthwith appear before the District Land Acquisition Officer along with all the revenue records relating to the land, which has been acquired for the project.

16. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur is directed to make the required forms available to the petitioners and see that all the formalities in applying for the compensation is fulfilled and if any assistance is required to the petitioners, he must provide all the assistance to the petitioners in that regard.

17. The District Land Acquisition Officer, after making payment of required compensation amount forthwith to Patna High Court CWJC No.17470 of 2021(6) dt.16-02-2026 10/10 the petitioners as per the present value in the area on the basis of MVR determined in that regard, give information to the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur well within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order that he has made payment of entire required amount of compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law so that the petitioners may not be harassed.

18. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector must ensure that Land Acquisition Officer make payment of the compensation to the petitioner well within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order, or the District Magistrate-cum-Collector will be held solely responsible for not complying with the order of this Court.

19. With aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/-