Bijendra Chaudhary And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18362 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Bijendra Chaudhary and Ors 2.

Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary 3.

Daya Shankar Chaudhary All sons of Late Nemani Chaudhary All residents of Village- Dharhara, Ganpatganj, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Supaul Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

Competent Authority-cum- District Land Acquisition Officer, DistrictSupaul. 3.

Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Districti- Supaul, 4.

District Collector, Supaul.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sajid Salim Khan-Sc25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred: for directing the authorities by a writ of Mandamus to treat the 18 decimals of land of Khesra No. 2884 of Mauza Dharhara under Khata No. 68/ka, total area 24 decimals, which has been treated as residential by the committee formed for assessing it instead of the declaration made by the registering authorities under the Registration Act and also to make payment at the rate of 1,10,000/- which has been granted only for Rs. 75,000/- which is quite

Patna High Court CWJC No.18362 of 2016(2) dt.19-08-2025 2/2 arbitrary and the decision of the Arbitrator cum Additional Collector, Supaul needs to be struck down to the extent as also to the fact of treating the nature of the land and location as lying next to the national highway.

3. At the outset, learned State Counsel submits that against the order passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioners should have approached the Competent Civil Court under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. Granting said liberty and if the same is preferred in next eight weeks, the Competent Civil Court shall note of the fact that the matter was pending before this Court for nine years while dealing with the limitation petition, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U