Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13816 of 2015 ====================================================== Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad Son of Jai Mangal Yadav R/o village - Laxhamanava, P.S. Raxaul, Distt. - East Champaran . ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department Cum Director, Land Acquisition Bihar, 3.

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway P 4.

The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 5.

The Addl. Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 6.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 For NHAI :

Mr. Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State as also Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the NHAI.

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

(i) for issuance of proper writ/writs, order/orders, direction /directions in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent to make payment of award as per the market value which is going to be acquired for construction of NH-28A from

Patna High Court CWJC No.13816 of 2015(3) dt.27-01-2026 2/2 Pipra Kothi to Raxaul going through Jokivari village having the khata no. 241 bearing khesra nо. 611 having an area of 0.0380 hectare separately in L.A.Case No06/11-12.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it will suffice if he may be allowed to approach the appropriate authority/Court for redressal of the grievance in line with the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13129 of 2015 (Jitendra Prasad Yadav vs. the State Of Bihar and Ors).

4. Learned State counsel has no objection.

5. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority/Court for redressal of the grievance.

6. If such petition is preferred in next four weeks, it has to be taken into account that the present writ petition was pending for the last ten years before this Court while dealing with the limitation petition.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U