Sujay Vind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12573 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Sujay Vind Son of Late Saryug Jamadar Bihar.

2.

Gande Vind Son of Late Chhotan Jamadar Resident of Village Chunukpur, P.O. Bandhuganj P.S. Ghoshi District Jahanabad. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Depart of Water Resource Patna.

2.

The Executive Engineer Water Resource Division Ghosi, Jahanabad. 3.

The District Magistrate Tohonabad.

4.

The Land Acquisition Officer Sone Yajans Aurangabad. 5.

The Circle Officer Modenganj, Ghoshi (Okari) District Jahanabad. 6.

The Revenue Officer Ghoshi Jahanabad.

7.

The Circle Officer Ghushi Jahanabad.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh (Ga2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-07-2019 It is the case of the petitioners that their lands have been acquired by the Circle Officer under 'Marai Bear Yojna' in 2015, but the amount of compensation has yet not been paid. The pleadings on record are inadequate to decide the petitioners' claim. A press communique, issued by the Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, gives an indication that the State of Bihar had intended to acquire the land in question under its lease policy. It is the petitioners' case that the amount, which the petitioners were entitled to receive, has been wrongly paid to

Patna High Court CWJC No.12573 of 2019(2) dt.15-07-2019 2/2 someone else.

It is not the case of the petitioners that they had entered into any lease agreement with the State Government, which could have entitled them to receive appropriate payment under the said lease policy of the State Government. The dispute is apparently between the petitioners and one Naresh Bind. If, according to the petitioners, the said Naresh Bind was not entitled to receive the amount, rather the petitioners were entitled to receive the amount, they shall have liberty to approach appropriate forum/Court for adjudication of the dispute. This is to be noticed that Naresh Bind has not been implicated as party-respondent in the present writ application. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U