Lala Mistri v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14213 of 2016 ====================================================== Lala Mistri son of Late Deosharan resident of village - Shekhwara, P.S. Magadh University, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India 2.

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

3.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gaya.

4.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya.

5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya.

6.

Munawa Devi wife of Late Dukhan Yadav resident of village - Orwan, P.S. - Barachatti, District - Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 28-07-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12 is present.

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

"(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the petitioner at present market rate as the land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata No. 103 Plot No. 18 measuring an area 0.123 was acquired by the respondents for widening of road of N.H.83 as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14213 of 2016(2) dt.28-07-2025 2/2 (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to recover the compensation from the respondent no.6 which has been received from the respondents in place of the petitioner, if any, as the respondent no.6 was not entitled for the same.

(iii) For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

3. Learned State counsel has taken this Court to paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit to show cause that after the enquiry, the respondent came to the conclusion that he land of the petitioner has not been acquired.

4. The counter affidavit was served upon Mr. Vinay Mistry on 13.10.2017 and there is no rebuttal to it.

5. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner chose not to appear either in the forenoon or in the afternoon, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U