Jagdish Ram v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1242 of 2017 ====================================================== Jagdish Ram Son of Late Khomari Ram, Resident of Village- Barej, P.O.- Kauriram, P.S.- Mohaniya, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India 2.

The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

3.

The National Highways Authority of India through its Chairman-cumSecretary, Ministry of Shipping null null 4.

The Project Director, National Highway Authority, Sasaram, Bihar. 5.

The District Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Competent Authority, Kaimur at Bhabua.

6.

The Additional Collector-cum- Arbitration, Kaimur at Bhabua. 7.

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mrs.Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-12-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though Mrs. Nutan Sahay representing the State.

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

(i) for setting aside the order dated 21.3.2015 passed in Misc. Case No.

294/2014-15 by the Additional Collectorcum-Arbitrator, Kaimur at Bhabua whereby and where under the learned Arbitrator has rejected the claim of the petitioner to calculate the value of acquired land in dispute at the rate of commercial in place of

Patna High Court CWJC No.1242 of 2017(4) dt.01-12-2025 2/2 residential;

(ii) and/or pass such any other order/orders which the court thinks the petitioner entitled for.

3. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5 is on record after service of copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.07.2017.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner moved before this Court against the order of the Arbitrator instead of going before a competent Civil Court as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. Be that as it may, a perusal of the order-sheet would show that before coordinate benches, only adjournments were sought for on 09.08.2018 and 07.09.2018 and today on call, there is no appearance.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U