Parmanand Pathak v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Revenue And Land Reforms Department, Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1108 of 2017 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2564 of 2013 =========================================================== Parmanand Pathak son of Late Shiveshwar Pathak resident of village Choraut, PS - Pupari, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Sri Rajiv Raushan, the Collector, Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Md. Khurshid alam, AAG 12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties.
2. In compliance of this Court's order dated 26.11.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2564 of 2013 the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi has examined the claim of the petitioner and found that some lands have been utilized for construction of a road. Accordingly, the District Magistrate had issued certain directions for either making payment of compensation or for vacating the lands in terms of the Bihar Raiyati Land Lease Policy, 2014.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the order of the District Magistrate as well as the affidavit filed in the instant
Patna High Court MJC No.1108 of 2017 dt.20-07-2018 2/2 proceedings with respect to area and current status of the land is incorrect and that he is entitled to compensation in terms of the policy of 2014.
4. Whatever may be the claim of the petitioner, it is for him to raise the same in an appropriate proceeding since in terms of the earlier order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2564 of 2013 the District Magistrate has examined the petitioner's claim and has passed orders.
5. No further orders need be passed in the contempt proceedings.
6. The contempt proceeding is dropped.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date