Jumrati Miya v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7562 of 2013 ====================================================== Jumrati Miya son of Late Munni Miya, resident of Village - Basantpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Kaimur (Bhabhua ) at present residing at Chainpur (House No.445 ), P.S. Chainpur, District - Kaimur ( Bhabhua ) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

3. The Collection, Shahabad, Ara

4. The Collector, Rohtas

5. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr.Ramendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to GP 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER -------------- 06-11-2015 Heard the parties.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, at the time of vesting of zamindari, his land was acquired by the State of Bihar, but without payment of compensation.

The petitioner had moved earlier before this Court in CWJC No. 5550 of 2010, which was disposed of by order dated 01.04.2010 (Annexure-1) with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua for redressal of his grievances. Thereafter, in the light of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure-2).

Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the matter at some length, but he has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with respect to order impugned. Otherwise also, the claim of the petitioner is very stale,

Patna High Court CWJC No.7562 of 2013 (4) dt.06-11-2015 2/2 as the claim for payment of compensation has been made after more than five decades. That being the position, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-2.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, but without cost.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U