Patna High CourtMJC/6503/2013disposed

Uday Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-01-22Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 6503 of 2013 ====================================================== Uday Kumar S/o Sri Chandreshwar Prasad Resident of Village- Rampur Dayal, P.S.- Piar, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, Through D.M. Muzaffarpur, Sri Anupam Kumar

2. The Circle Officer, Bandra Block, Muzaffarpur, Smt. Indrani Kumari

3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Office, Muzaffarpur, Er. Om Prakash Manjhi

4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Office, Muzaffarpur, Er. Vijay Sheel Kashyap

5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Office, Muzaffarpur, Sri Sunil Kumar .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn For the Opp. Party/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7.

22-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the State.

The present petition was filed on an allegation of wilful disobedience to an order dated 29-10-2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8208 of 2010.

The petitioner earlier had approached this Court making a complaint that on his private land the respondents-State were trying to construct a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sarak Yojana. The writ petition was disposed of with an indication that without acquisition of land or without consent of land-owner, no such construction can be made.

Patna High Court MJC No.6503 of 2013 (7) dt.22-01-2015 2/2 In this case, show causes have been filed and in last supplementary show cause filed on behalf of District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, it has been indicated that whatever materials were placed earlier over the land of the petitioner, that has already been removed. Ofcourse, it has not been indicated that on which date those materials were removed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the petitioner was disturbed for a long time and as such, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. In the contempt proceeding, it would be difficult to pass such order, however; if so advised, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy regarding the claim of the compensation. The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U