Mahendra Prasad Agrawal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7687 of 2020 ====================================================== Mahendra Prasad Agrawal, Gender - Male, aged about 65 years, Son of Ramchandra Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Village-Gurua, Post Office + Police Station-Gurua, District-Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The District Magistrate, Gaya, Bihar.
3.
The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Gaya, Bihar. 4.
The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Gaya, Bihar. 5.
The Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department, Gaya, Bihar. 6.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sherghati, District-Gaya, Bihar. 7.
The Circle Officer, Gurua Circle, District-Gaya, Bihar. 8.
The Officer-in-Charge, Gurua Police Station, District-Gaya, Bihar. 9.
Sachitanand Sharma @ Nunu Pandey, Gender - Male, aged about 60 years, Son of Basanti Pandey, Resident of Village-Gurua, Post Office + Police Station-Gurua, District-Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar No. 7, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Lalit Kishore ( AG ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner prays for the following reliefs : (i) For restraining the Respondent Authorities not to demolish the residential house and shop of the petitioner constructed upon Khata No.9, Plot No.962, Area 144 Square feet.
(ii) For any other relief/ reliefs for which
Patna High Court CWJC No.7687 of 2020(4) dt.03-02-2021 2/2 petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State.
The statement made in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit is that no part of Rayati land of petitioner or no portion of the house of the petitioner has been taken/used to construct the road, crossing through Gurua Bazar and without executing widening work of road in front of house of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is infructuous.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- U