Md. Shoyab Alam And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Md. Shoyab Alam Son of Late Md. Moajjam, 2.

Md. Zafir Ahmad, Son of Late SK. Atabul.

3.

Bibi Zubeda, D/o Late Sk. Atabul.

4.

Bibi Kamrun Nisha, D/o Late SK. Atabul.

5.

Rehana Khatoon, D/o Late SK. Atabul.

6.

Shanawaz Khan, Son of M/o Bibi Najma, 7.

Mumtaj Begam, M/o Bibi Ajida. All are the resident of Village- Pirpainty Bazar, P.S. Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

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

The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 5.

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

6.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur. 7.

The Circle Officer, Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur. 8.

The Block Development Officer, Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur. 9.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-04-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.

2. The present application has been preferred for the grant of following relief:

(i) To pay the adequate compensation at the rate of similar situated lands of other adjacent Mauja against the land to be taken by the respondents for installation of the pirpainty Thermal power

Patna High Court CWJC No.10757 of 2017(2) dt.22-04-2025 2/3 projects which had been given to the farmer whose lands also had been taken for installation of the Thermal Generation Plant.

(ii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the solecism to the petitioner in terms of the law and the respondent State and its instrumentality can not discriminate the petitioners from others on technical ground or by any other means of reason.

(iii) For a direction upon the respondents to pay the compensation amount to all those petitioner equivalent to the other Mauja which are situated just adjacent to the lands of petitioner but the authority discriminating without valid or cogent reason.

(iv) For a direction upon the respondents to at least give one employment to all those farmers including the petitioners whose lands are being acquired by the State and who have no other sources of livelihood except the land which are being acquired.

(v) For a direction upon the respondents to get

Patna High Court CWJC No.10757 of 2017(2) dt.22-04-2025 3/3 the matter settled amicable in terms of the law established and keeping in view of the welfare scheme sponsored by the State time to time for the benefit of the land loosers.

(vi) For a direction upon the respondents to pay the commercial rate of the land which is being acquired and not to pay the agricultural rate to the petitioners as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India time to time."

3. It is the stand of the State that there is nothing on record to show whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation or not and if he has a case, should have approached the respondent no.4, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, instead, the writ petition.

4. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U