Lakshmi Devi @ Lachho Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5662 of 2015 ====================================================== Lakshmi Devi @ Lachho Devi W/o Sri Kamla Prasad and D/o Jagdish Mahto. Resident of village - Pipra, Police Station - Wazirganj, District - Gaya. At present resident of Mohalla - Sarifaganj, P.S.- Malsalami, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

District Collector, Gaya.

3.

Circle Officer, Wazirganj, Distt.- Gaya.

4.

Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya.

5.

Jagdish Mahto. S/o Late Kiret Mahto. Resident of village - Pipra, P.S.- Wazirganj, District - Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Upendra Singh,Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 07-07-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though the State is present.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for a direction to the respondents not to make payment of compensation money of acquired land bearing plot no.401 and 423 to the respondent no.5 till the disposal of the Title suit no 275/2011 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Gaya.

3. Mr. Upendra Singh has taken this Court to the un-

Patna High Court CWJC No.5662 of 2015(3) dt.07-07-2025 2/2 rebutted counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 and 4 with specific reference to para-7, according to which though earlier payment was made to the respondent no.5, upon knowledge of the disputes, the compensation amount stands returned to the government account. Submission is that in that background, the writ petition has become infructuous.

4. It is to be reiterated that the copy of the counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 07.12.2017, the paragraph 7 of the said reply has been recorded, according to which, the government amount now stands returned, the same has not been rebutted.

5. In that background, treating the writ petition to be infructuous, it is disposed of.

6. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U