Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Sudhir Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5670 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Sudhir Singh and Anr Son of Late Hari Singh, resident of Village- Maheshwara, P.S. Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. 2.

Dukhan Singh @ Dukhharan Singh, Son of Late Raso Singh, Resident of Village- Maheshwara, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Scheme, Muzaffarpur. 3.

Circle Officer, Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. 4.

Shanti Devi, Wife of Late Kamata Singh, resident of Village- Maheshwara, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur.

5.

Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Late Kamata Singh, resident of VillageMaheshwara, P.S. Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Roy-Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 None appears for the petitioners though learned counsel for the State is present.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following reliefs:

(i) For directing and commanding the respondents to quash the letter no. 896 dated 17.8.16 (Ann-3) passed by respondent no.-2, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Scheme, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder respondent no.-2 gave a direction to the petitioners as well as private respondent no. -5 to return the compensation amount of Rs. 464928.00/- each to his office within a fortnight as the compensation for land acquisition amount have wrongly been paid to them. (ii) And also for any other relief/ reliefs for which petitioners are found to be legally entitled under the facts and

Patna High Court CWJC No.5670 of 2017(4) dt.01-09-2025 2/2 circumstances of the case.

3. Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, learned G.P.-18 submits that though the petitioners did not own the land, the payment was made and in that background, the notice was issued.

4. Instead of replying and satisfying the concerned respondent, they have chosen to approach this Court.

5. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance, dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Saif/- U T