Petitioner claims rights under land acquisition law following unauthorized occupation; Court mandates response from respondents regarding land dispute.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

2 09-12-2025 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as also learned counsel for the Railways.

2.The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) to issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents concerned to pay compensation in terms of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to New Land Acquisition Act, 2013) or the relevant acquisition law applicable to the railways in respect of 12 kathas of land in the eastern part of plot no. 374, khata no. 298, Mauza Bihta, being raiyati lands of the petitioner and his family which has been illegally occupied by the respondents/railways without any acquisition proceeding and payment of compensation or consent of the petitioner or his family and also for a direction to pay penal interest for unauthorized occupation thereof till date of payment of compensation and/or alternatively remove the unauthorized construction of the boundary wall on the raiyati lands of the petitioner and restore the possession of the same to the petitioner and his family who are undisputedly owners of the aforesaid lands;

(ii) any other relief/reliefs your lordships deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. This application shall be heard.

4. All the parties (State Government) as also the East Central Railways have appeared and as such no notice is required.

5. The respondents are required to file a para-wise reply/comprehensive counter affidavit with supporting documents on the point raised by the petitioner specially paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition in which a categorical statement has been made that the plot no. 374 was never acquired, remained in cultivating possession of the family but recently, the Railways have erected the boundary wall. The contention is that the revenue receipt still shows the petitioner to be the owner of the said plot.

6. Pleadings to be exchanged in six months. 7. Rule is made returnable within one year.

(Rajiv Roy, J)