Sheikh Jawahir And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11298 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Sheikh Jawahir and Anr Son of Late Sheikh Saleem 2.

Sheikh Mubarak, Son of Late Dukha. Both are Resident of VillageKunjbanna, P.S- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhagalpur. 3.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, G.A. 8 Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to G.A. 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents, to make payment of compensation amount of the lands already acquired for the purpose of Pirpainti Thermal Power Project to the sharers including the petitioners for which Panchat has already made.

(ii) For holding and declaration that petitioners and other co-sharers are entitled to get their sharing amount as indicated in Panchat No 150, 342,343.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2015(3) dt.14-07-2025 2/2 (iii) And/or pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. Learned State Counsel has taken this Court to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 according to which, pursuant to Award No. 342 and 343, the payments have already been made to the heirs of the awardee.

4. So far as the Award No. 150 is concerned, the statement is that payment could not be made as it is more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and for making the said payment, succession certificate is required which the petitioners have not provided.

5. The counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioners on 04.09.2018 and there is no rebuttal. In that background, nothing remains. Regarding the two awards, payments have been made, whereas in case of the third award, the petitioners are duty-bound to provide the documents which the authorities are asking for.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U