Yadunandan Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13003 of 2021 ====================================================== Yadunandan Bhagat Son of Late Chalitar Bhagat @ Late Charitra Bhagat Resident of Village- Chainpur, P.S. Vena, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 3.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 4.

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, National Highway Division, Biharsharif.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Syed Iqbal Ahmad (SC20) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- "That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent concern to pay the adequate compensation/cost of land to the petitioner for acquisition on perpetual lease for the purpose widening NH-30A considering the market value of land and also maintaining the parity as the others have been allowed more cost compensation in the same area/Mauza. And also consider his claim for rehabilitation.

And for any other relief (s) for which the petitioner found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case".

2. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2021(4) dt.11-09-2025 2/2 petitioner and Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, learned SC 20 for the State.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he did not receive adequate compensation in respect of his land which was acquired by the National Highway Authority for the construction/ widening of the NH 30A. The petitioner has compared his compensation amount with that of other landholders who were given compensation after acquisition of their land mainly on the ground of nature of the land but he did not raise any objection under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 at the time of receiving compensation. The petitioner's silence for prolonged period after receiving compensation goes against him and this court is not persuaded to exercise its writ jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's issue and the petitioner has not made out a case for invoking writ jurisdiction of this court.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U