Manjit Kumar Sharma @ Manjit Maharaj v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11079 of 2016 ====================================================== Manjit Kumar Sharma @ Manjit Maharaj Son of Late Umanath Sharma, resident of Village- Ismailpur, P.S. Doriganj, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

Commissioner, Saran at Chapra.

3.

D.M. -Cum-District Collector, Saran.

4.

District Land Acquisition Officer, Saran.

5.

Executive Engineer, Bhawan Pramandal, Chapra. 6.

Circle Officer, Saran, Chapra.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhanajay Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Adv.

Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 21-07-2025 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(i) To provide complete compensation i.e. 100% Compensation for acquirement of double floor building only 80% compensation has been paid.

In view of the facts petitioner's building has been acquired construction of N.Η. for four lane road and compensation has been paid only 80% whereas it should be paid full compensation 100% it is situated on Plot no. 94

Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2016(2) dt.21-07-2025 2/2 and same has been acquired as per the process. (ii) To provide the compensation as per the in of of highest rate of Government as well as the Judgment the light Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the payment of compensation must adequate sufficientand satisfactory. be (iii) To provide 24% interest on entire amount whereas only 12% has been paid due to oblique intention. reason and malafide intention.

3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that the matter has to be adjudicated by the Divisional Commissioner, Saran at Chapra-cum-arbitrator.

4. Learned State Counsel also impose the same line.

5. In that background, this Court allows the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Saran at Chapra-cum-Arbitrator who shall consider the limitation petition taking into account the fact that the matter was pending before Patna High Court for the last nine years.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U