Lalit Mohan Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11277 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Lalit Mohan Rai Son of Jai Pal Rai Resident of Village- Kanahauli Bazidpur, Police Station- Bihta, District- Patna.

2.

Sarbi Prasad Son of Late Ram Deni Rai Resident of Village- Tillu Tola, Post Office- Sadisopur, Police Station- Naubatpur, District- Patna. 3.

Lalit Rai Son of Lorick Rai Resident of Village- Tillu Tola, Post OfficeKanahauli Bazidpur, Police Station- Bihta, District- Patna. 4.

Rupesh Charan @ Rupesh Kumar Son of Rama Rai Resident of VillageTillu Tola, Post Office- Kanahauli Bazidpur, Police Station- Bihta, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Secretary, Land Acquisition and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, Land Acquisition and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Patna. 5.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.

6.

That Managing Director, Bihar State Road Construction Corporation, Mechanical Work Shop Campus, Near Airport, Sheikhpur, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Govind Mishra For the State :

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (AAAG-12) Mr. M.M.Khan, AC to AAG 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2019 Heard.

It has been stated in the writ application that the land was acquired in the year 2011. The petitioners are seeking compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Patna High Court CWJC No.11277 of 2019(2) dt.24-06-2019 2/2 Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners state that they did not have any knowledge of acquisition.

On the one hand, it has been stated that the land was acquired in 2011, there are statements that subsequent thereto the petitioners purchased the said land.

The writ petition is not only deficient in pleadings, it contains the self-contradictory statements. This writ petition cannot, therefore, be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not come in the way of the petitioners, invoking appropriate provisions of law, for the purpose of raising their rightful claim(s).

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) HR/- U