Ganga Prasad Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15354 of 2019 ====================================================== Ganga Prasad Ram Son of Late Srilal Ram, resident of Village Garaul, P.O.- Baghwa, P.S.- Mahesi, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretay, Land Revenue, Bihar. 2.

The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

3.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa.

4.

Chairman Cum Development Commissioner, Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited. (State Highway Authority Bihar) office at RCD Mechanical Workshop Campus Shaheed Pir Ali Khan Marg Near Sheikhpura Patna.

5.

Principal Secretary Road Construction Department cum Managing Director Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited. (State Highway Authority Bihar) office at RCD Mechanical Workshop Campus Shaheed Pir Ali Khan Marg Near Sheikhpura Patna.

6.

Executive Engineer, Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited. (State Highway Authority Bihar) office at RCD Mechanical Workshop Campus Shaheed Pir Ali Khan Marg Near Sheikhpura Patna. 7.

The Circle Officer, Mahesi, District- Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh Mr. Hemant Kr. Sharma For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Roy (GP-18) For the NHAI Mr. S.N.Pathak, SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-07-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner's land has been acquired for public purpose under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'). He is, however, not satisfied with the determination of the amount of compensation, which has

Patna High Court CWJC No.15354 of 2019(2) dt.30-07-2019 2/2 been found payable to him.

It is the petitioner's case that whereas the land of the petitioner, which has been acquired, is commercial in nature, the respondents, for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation, have treated the same to be not commercial. In my view, if the award, which has been prepared for payment to the petitioner by way of compensation against acquisition of his land is not acceptable to him, he has remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which he may invoke before the competent authrity, in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) HR/- U