PATNA HIGH COURT
Rajiv Roy, J
Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Anr – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16877 of 2018
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. government claims no land acquisition occurred. (Para 3) |
| 2. court concludes no acquisition based on government assertion. (Para 5) |
| 3. court disposes the writ petition. (Para 6) |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER
2 09-12-2025 Heard Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Singh representing the State as also Mr.
Priyadarshi representing the respondent no. 3.
2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):
for issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of Land Acquisition Compensation amount for acquiring of 28.5 decimals of land for construction of bridge/Pul over south middle of plot and 13.5 decimal for construction of road towards south east approaching Pul over the land in Mauza Katakosh, Tauri No. 38, Thana no. 246, Khata no. 582, Khesara no. 3000, area 4.72 Acres, Jamabandi no. 3559 in the name of petitioner no. 2 Dinanath Gupta father of petitioner no. 1 and this land was acquired without notice and bridge and road constructed in the name of H.I.R.C.C Bridge (3 x 16.50) in 1" cutting in 7th K.M. of Manihari Amdabad Road in Manihari Block in the District of Katihar, work started on 4/2011 and completed on 6/2012 by Bihar State Bridge Construction Limited, work Division Katihar but till date no compensation amount for the acquired land was paid to petitioner inspite of several representation before the authority concerned as such the petitioners are entitled for the payment of compensation amount of total 42 decimals of acquired land with interest till date from the date of acquisition of land in the year 2011.
3. A counter affidavit by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Katihar has been filed in the year 2022 after service of copy to the learned State Counsel and paragraph 21 shows that no land of the petitioner has been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act .
4. There is no rejoinder to the said affidavit.
5. In that background, the Court assumes that the land of the petitioners have not been acquired by the Government. If the petitioners still have have any grievance, is free to move before the Collector, Katihar.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.