SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Pat) 630

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
Murari Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Siya Ram Sahi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha.
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dixit.

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Special P.P., Mines and Minerals alongwith learned GA7.

2. The petitioner has asked for the following relief:—

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to clarify the area of land declared for mining of sand of Mauza Kishanpur, Block-1, Anchal Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai specifically to their Khata and Area so that the Raiyati Lands of the petitioners may not be included to the lands so demarcated for mining of sands, contained in Annexure-1.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents not to include the Raiyati lands of the petitioners in the sand mining area as declared in Mauza Kishanpur, Block-1, Anchal Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai.

(iii) For any other reliefs or reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under law as well as on the facts of the case.”

3. However, under Para-4 of the petition has fully detailed respective survey plot numbers belonging to the petitioners.

4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but counter affidavit is on behalf of respondent no.3, the Collector, Lakhisarai as well as respondent no.4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top