Parsuram Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13386 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Parsuram Kumar Son of Late Harihar Prasad 2.

Sarvesh Kumar, Son of ram Sahai Mahto.

3.

Mahesh Prasad, Son of Late Saudagar Mahto 4.

Balram Prasad, Son of Late Ganauri Prasad 5.

Sudhir Kumar, Son of Late Suresh Prasad 6.

Santosh Kumar, Son of Late Shivnandan Prasad 7.

Ajay Kumar, Son of Late Shiv Nandan Prasad 8.

Shiv Kumar Prasad, Son of Chandrika Prasad 9.

Sanjay Prasad Son of Chaandrika Prasad 10.

Sujit Kumar, Son of Late Suresh Prasad 11.

Siya Saran Prasad, Son of Late Umrao Mahto 12.

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Saudagar Mahto. All are Resident of Village-Raipur Koyalbigha, P.S. Tharthari, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif 3.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Biharsharif District-Nalanda. 4.

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Biharsharif Nalanda. 5.

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Biharsharif Divisin, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

6.

The Circle Officer, Anchal Chandi now Tharthari, P.S. Tarthari, DistrictNalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Roy-Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2025 Heard the parties.

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

(i) to direct the concerned Respondents to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners at

Patna High Court CWJC No.13386 of 2017(2) dt.29-04-2025 2/2 the rate of Industrial/Commercial of the acquired lands of village Raipur Koyabigha, Thana no. 307, P.S. Tharthari, DistrictNalanda with interest thereon forthwith; (ii) to grant any other relief/reliefs which the petitioners may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. A categorical reply has come in paragraph-6 that the petitioners were paying rent receipt for the agricultural land, the compensation amount has been received and now it is being agitated that it should be categorized as commercial. The counter affidavit filed in the year 2019 has not been rebutted in next six years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they be granted opportunity to approach the appropriate authority for the redressal of the grievances.

5. Without commenting on the merit of the case, granting liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U