Lav Kush Singh @ Vijay Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9809 of 2014 ====================================================== Lav Kush Singh @ Vijay Singh S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh Resident of Village Fatehpur Survey, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna. At present residing at Village Chandpur, P.S. Chandi, District Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.

3.

The Collector, Patna.

4.

Meena Kumari W/o Anil Kumar Singh 5.

Sunil Kumar S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh 6.

Santosh Kumar S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh 7.

Ram Sheela Devi W/o Ashok Kumar Singh All Residents of Village Fatehpur Survey, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the State :

Mr. Anirban Kundu, SC 24 Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar For Respondent Nos. 4-7:

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge II, Patna in Land Acquisition Case No. 240 of 2010.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the State raises preliminary objection to the effect that statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9809 of 2014(4) dt.10-10-2023 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the above proposition.

5. The writ application stands disposed with an observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate forum as may be available to him in accordance with law.

6. It goes without saying that if any question of limitation arises before the competent authority, the same shall be considered taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was pursuing the issue before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. This writ application stands disposed of with the above observation.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U