Patna High CourtCWJC/6852/2019disposed

Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-04-05Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6852 of 2019 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar, Son of Late Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of North of Maharaja Hata Girls High School, Police Station Buxar, District Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of BIhar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar Patna 3.

The District Magistrate Buxar 4.

The Competent Authority Cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Buxar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy ( GP18 ) Mr. Abhay Kumar Kashyap, AC to GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-04-2019 Though the matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders on Office Notes' with certain notes of the Registry pointing out the defects in the writ application, considering the nature of dispute the matter has been heard on merit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 14.12.2018, passed by the competent authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Buxar, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act').

Patna High Court CWJC No.6852 of 2019(2) dt.05-04-2019 2/2 By the said order, dated 14.12.2018, the competent authority under the Act, has refused to allow the compensation in favour of the petitioner giving him the benefit of existence of Rice Mill over the land, in question.

The petitioner does not dispute that he has alternative remedy of invoking Section 64 of the Act by making application before the Divisional Commissioner.

Since the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy before the competent forum, this application is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall have the liberty to approach the Divisional Commissioner for redressal of his grievance. It is indicated that I have not gone into the merits of the case.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ashish/- U