Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10049 of 2020 ====================================================== Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad Son of Late Ram Vriksha Mahto, resident of Village- Kaila, P.S.- Asthaawan, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda. 4.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda. 5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, District - Nalanda. 6.

The Circle Officer, Asthawan, District - Nalanda. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Dhrajati Kumar Prasad, G.P.-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to pay the compensation against the land acquired by the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer as well as respondent District Magistrate appertaining to Survey Plot No. 1679 and 1678 area 05 dec. and 10 dec. respectively though more land has already been acquired which would be transpired after proper measurement.

(ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ for

Patna High Court CWJC No.10049 of 2020 dt.27-06-2022 2/2 direction to the respondent authority to pay the amount against the cost of Dharmshala which has been demolished situated at Survey Plot No. 1679 in Kaila Mauza.

(iii) Further for direction to respondent authority to pay the amount against the acquired land with statutory as well as penal interest.

The petitioner claims to be the care-taker of the Dharmshala and he has no interest in the property in question. He may be the care-taker of the Dharmshala but the original owner or the body which is looking after the Dharmshala has the legal right to move any competent Court. The petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N/A.

Uploading Date Transmission Date