Gayatri Kumari @ Gayatri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7153 of 2024 ====================================================== Gayatri Kumari @ Gayatri Devi wife of Sri Arvind Kumar Sinha, Resident of House No.- 303, A.P. Colony, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya, at present residing at Kathal Tola, Sohsarai, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Consolidation (Chakbandi), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Joint Director, Consolidation (Chakbandi) cum Secretary of the Commissioner, Magadh Division cum Additional Collector, Gaya, having its office at House No.- 203, A.P. Colony, Gaya, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya. 4.

The Additional Collector -cum- Joint Director, Chakbandi, Kendriya Yojna, Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Virendra Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Government Advocate 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-08-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1(i). For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing / commanding the Respondent Authority to vacate the House/premises of the Petitioner bearing House No. 203, A.P. Colony, Gaya, illegally occupying / capturing the house/premises of the petitioner. (ii). For directing the Respondent Authority to pay the arrear of rent from March, 2008 to till date and October-November, 2003 and February, 2004 with up-to-date penal interest @ 18% per annum from due date till date payment is made

Patna High Court CWJC No.7153 of 2024(3) dt.12-08-2024 2/2 with litigation cost of the house/premises bearing House No. 203, Α.Ρ. Colony, Gaya."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the RespondentState submits, by referring to the supplementary counter affidavit being filed in the present case, copy whereof has already been filed online that the premises in question has already stood vacated and a sum of Rs. 4,32,500/- has also been paid to the petitioner by way of the outstanding rent. 3.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in question has been damaged, hence, the petitioner is liable to be granted damages, apart from being compensated for the delay in vacation of the premises in question and for the same, he seeks liberty to avail such other remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

4.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U