Babban Singh v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1355 of 2017 ====================================================== Babban Singh Son of Faujdar Singh, 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 R 4.

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

The District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Kaimura 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 :

Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, AC to GP-18 For the NHAI :

Mr. Kumar Gautam, Advocate Ms. Priyanshu Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-11-2025 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):

"for setting aside the order dated 4.4.2015 passed in Misc. Case No. 338/2014-15 by the Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Kaimur at Bhabua whereby and where under the learned Arbitrator has rejected the claim of the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.1355 of 2017(3) dt.25-11-2025 2/2 to calculate the value of acquired land in dispute at the rate of commercial in place of residential. And/or pass such any other order/orders which the court thinks the petitioner entitled for."

3. A counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 5 and 6 is/are on record.

4. A copy of the counter-affidavit was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 27.11.2017 and the contention of the respondent is/are that he should have moved before the competent Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956.

5. However, since there is no appearance, the writ petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U