Krishna Murari Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7830 of 2018 ====================================================== Krishna Murari Gupta son of Late Kashinath Sah, resident of VillageJamalpur, P.O. Atimi, P.S. Nasariganj Circle Nasariganj, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.

The D.C.L.R. Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.

The Circle Officer, Nasariganj District Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.

Radhika Raman Prasad Gupta, son of Late Kashi Nath Gupta, resident of Village- Jamalpur, P.O. Atimi, P.S. Nasariganj, Circle Nasariganj, DistrictRohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocat For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ebadur Rahman, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-08-2024 Heard Mr. Raghunanadan Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ebadur Rahman, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2017 passed in Case No.2/3(i)/17-18 by the respondent No.3 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for getting the amount of award in lieu of the land of the petitioner situated under Thana No.62, Circle Nasariganj, Khata No.147, Khesra No.1123 Area 0.45 acres acquired by the respondent.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

Patna High Court CWJC No.7830 of 2018(2) dt.22-08-2024 2/3 respondent Nos.2 to 5. Categorical averments have been made in Paragraph Nos. 10 to 12 that the objection of the petitioner was duly considered in the light of the revenue records and on being found that the land in question has been purchased by one Radhika Raman Gupta through sale deed No.7342 dated 15.10.2016 and the same was mutated in her name vide Mutation Case No.769/2016-17. Accordingly, the compensation has been awarded to her.

4. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the State submits that if the petitioner has any grievance, he has the remedy as provided under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

5. Considering the nature of the grievance, the writ petition stands disposed off with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before respondent No.2 who shall refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

6. On reference being made, the competent authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and dispose off the same in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three

Patna High Court CWJC No.7830 of 2018(2) dt.22-08-2024 3/3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Harish Kumar, J) durgesh/- U