Churamani Singh Alias Toofani Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14992 of 2017 ====================================================== Churamani Singh Alias Toofani Singh Son of late Birmani Singh Resident of Village Shivnar Mahadev Than Tola, Police Station- Mokama and District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

District Magistrate, Patna.

3.

District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.

4.

Smt. Pratima Devi Wife of Nand Kishore Sharma Resident of Village Shivnar Mahadev Than Tola, Police Station- Mokama and District Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sajid Salim Khan-Sc25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though the State is present.

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

(i) to restrain the respondent authorities of the State from making any further payment to Smt. Pratima Devi in connection with L.A. Case no.35/2013-14 in the Court of learned District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, over and above what has been paid to the respondent no.4, for a direction to the State respondent authorities to take

Patna High Court CWJC No.14992 of 2017(2) dt.29-04-2025 2/2 back the amount that has been illegally paid to the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 be directed to deposit the said amount and for grant of all other reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in course of hearing of this application.

3. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 is on record and the learned State Counsel has taken this Court to paragraphs 12 and 13 to show that the respondent no.4, Pratima Devi submitted claim and got compensation and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has admitted in the representation that he has no document to support his possession over the land and in that background, his claim was not found to be correct unless he gets an order from the competent Civil Court.

4. Be that as it may, since no one has represented the petitioner, the is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U