Md. Irfan v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.90 of 2017 ====================================================== Md. Irfan Son of Md. Abdus Salam Resident of Village-Adalpur, Tole-Muria, P.S.-Sadar, P.O.-Muria, District-Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union Of India and Ors 2.
The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi 3.
THe Chief Managing Director, National Highway Authority of India, Government of India, New Delhi 4.
The Project Director, Narional Highway Authority of India, Darbhanga Unit, Darbhanga 5.
The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govern 6.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of BIhar, Patna 7.
The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Darbhanga 8.
The District Land Acquisition officer, Darbhanga ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manish Kumar No 13, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam- AAG 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
(i) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law, with bank rate interest, regarding acquisition of 0.085 Hectares land situated
Patna High Court CWJC No.90 of 2017(4) dt.01-09-2025 2/2 at Mauza Adalpur, Thana No. 626, C.S.
Khata No.- 337, C.S. Khesra No.- 120 (old) (hereinafter referred to as "acquired land" in short only), by the National Highway Authority of India for widening and strengthening of N.H.-57;
(ii) any other writ / writs for granting any other relief /reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, Manish Kumar -13 that the file was taken by the petitioner in the year 2018 itself and has not contacted since then.
4. There is no appearance of any other counsel in the matter. Though the name of Rohit Kumar-5 appears, there is no appearance on his behalf.
5. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for nonprosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U