Dilip Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9453 of 2016 ====================================================== Dilip Mahto S/o Late Ramkishun Mahto Resident of Mohalla- Gulbi Ghat, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

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

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Raod Development, Corporation Limited, Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer, District Saran at Chapra

7. The Circle Officer, Sonepur, District- Saran

8. Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd. through its Managing Director, Corporate Office at Plot No. 379, Road No.10, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad500033, State- Andhra Pradesh

9. Managing Director, Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd. through its Managing Director, Corporate Office at Plot No. 379, Road No.10, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad- 500033, State- Andhra Pradesh.

10. Assistant General Manager (Projects), Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd., at Office- Chand Hospital, House No. 171, Patliputra Colony, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aag10 P N Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2017 Heard.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of direction to the respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioner for the acquisition of his land, which has been acquired for construction of Ganga Highway (from Digha to

Patna High Court CWJC No.9453 of 2016 (3) dt.26-04-2017 2/2 Didarganj), but it would appear from perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 that uptil now, the land of the petitioner for construction of the aforesaid Highway has not been acquired and, therefore, in my view, this writ petition is misconceived.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that in future, if the land of the petitioner is acquired for construction of the aforesaid project or any other project, the State shall be liable to make payment of compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/- U