Rakesh Kumar Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6991 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.

Rakesh Kumar Pathak Son of Ram Prakash Pathak, Resident of Piprahi, Ward No. 3, Masaura, P.S. Piprahi, District- Sheohar. 2.

Dinkar Tiwari, Sono f Kamal Tiwari, R/o Basahiya Shalkh, Resident of Basahiya Shalkh, Ward No. , P.S. Piprahi, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

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

3.

Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Bihar, Patna. 4.

Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.

Chief Engineer-Cum-Additional Commission-Cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar,Patna.

6.

Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam, Limited, Patna, Bihar. 7.

Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

8.

Chief Engineer, North Bihar Circle, Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam, Limited, Patna, Bihar.

9.

Deputy Chief Engineer, North Bihar Circle, Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam, Limited, Patna, Bihar.

10.

Executive Engineer, Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam, Limited, Sitamarhi. 11.

District Collector, Sheohar.

12.

Additional Collector, Revenue, Sheohar.

13.

District Land Acquisition Officer, Sheohar.

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Raj Krishan Jha For the Respondents :

Mr.Subash Chandra Yadav (GP15) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-07-2022 Heard the parties.

Mrs. Binita Singh appears for the respondent no. 6 The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have been noticed but they are not agree to accept the compensation amount being offered to them by the State.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6991 of 2020(5) dt.18-07-2022 2/2 On this, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the compensation being offered by the State is on the lower side therefore, they are not accepting the compensation amount. It is directed that the petitioners will accept the amount being offered by the State with protest and if they feel that the compensation amount paid to them is not proper, they can raise their grievances in accordance with law before the authority concerned.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U