Anil Kumar Gupta And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.670 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Anil Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Dinanath Gupta.

2. Binod Pd., S/o Late Kashi Pd.

3. Jatilal Pd., S/o Late Seva Sah.

4. Ramwati Devi, W/o Late Joginder Pd. All R/o Village- Pantoka, P.S.- 7, Anchal- Raxaul, District- E. Champaran.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director, Land Acquisition, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna.

6. The Collector, Motihari.

7. The Land Acquisition Officer, Motihari.

8. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, through its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.

9. The Secretary, Border Management Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mallika Mazumdar, Adv. For the Union of India : Mr. Anjani Kr. Sharan, C.G.C. For the State Mr. Khurshid Alam AAG-12 For the State Mr. Sachindra Kumar Tiwari, AC to AG. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 This matter has been listed out of turn on the basis of mentioning slip filed on behalf of the petitioners. Heard the parties.

The grievance of the petitioners is that lands of some other persons including petitioners were acquired but compensation was not paid equally to petitioners and thereafter,

Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2017 (2) dt.18-03-2017 2/2 they filed representation before the competent authority but the representation of the petitioners was not disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in CWJC No. 13252 of 2013, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court gave liberty to petitioner of that writ petition to file representation before the competent authority and the competent authority was directed to examine and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this petition may also be disposed of in view of order passed in CWJC No. 13252 of 2013.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of giving direction to respondent no. 7 ( Land Acquisition Officer, Motihari) to dispose of the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if the representation of the petitioners is found missing, the petitioners may file fresh representation before the respondent no. 7 within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U