Dadan Singh v. State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.36 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11857 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Dadan Singh S/o-Sri Narayan Singh R/o-Village-Bamhaour, P.O. and P.S.- Shivsagar, Dist.-Rohtas.

2.

Dinanath Singh S/o Late Anirudh Singh R/o-Village-Bamhaour, P.O. and P.S.-Shivsagar, Dist.-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State of Bihar 2.

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

3.

The Distirct Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

The District Land Acquisition Officer Rohtas, Sasaram. Cum Competent Authority.

5.

The Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Sasaram, Rohtas. 6.

The Circle Officer, Sheosagar, Sheosagar Circle, Rohtas. 7.

The National High Ways Authority of India, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

8.

The Managing Director, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi. 9.

The Project Manager, National Highways authority of India, NH-2 (Varanasi-Aurangabad Section), Sasaram, Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. An I.A. application, bearing No. 01 of 2024, has been filed seeking relief to pursue civil review being the son and the legal heir of petitioner No. 2, Anirudha Singh, who died during the pendency of the writ application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

Patna High Court C. REV. No.36 of 2023(4) dt.23-02-2024 2/2 substitution petition was filed in the writ application on 28.06.2022 vide I.A. No. 1 of 2022 but the same was not pressed by learned counsel appearing for Anirudha singh and the I.A. was not disposed.

4. Leave granted.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out cogent ground for review of the order dated 10.01.2023. Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U