Shushila Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14238 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Shushila Devi and Anr Wife of Sri Sita Ram Singh, resident of Morsand Total, Gaighat, P.S. Runisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. 2.

Ram Chandra Singh, Son of Late Bahadur Singh, resident of Morsand Total, Gaighat, P.S. Runisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India. 3.

The Collector, Sitamarhi.

4.

The Additonal Collector, Sitamarhi 5.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi. 6.

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi. 7.

The District Sub- Registrar, Sitamarhi 8.

The Circle Officer, Runisaidpur, Sitamarhi.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghwanand, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to Ex-AAG-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"(i) To direct the respondent authorities for making payment of the compensation to the petitioners against their lands acquired by the Central Government, which fall within the stretch of N.H.77 (Muzaffarpur-Sitamarhi-Sonbarsa) in terms of

Patna High Court CWJC No.14238 of 2016(3) dt.28-07-2025 2/3 Resolution contained in Memo No. 747 dated 13.05.2008 i.e. Bihar Land Acquisition Reestablishment and Re-habilitation Policy, 2007. (ii) To direct the respondents to make payment of compensation amount to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per decimal against their acquired land for the purpose of N.H.-77 in the State of Bihar.

(iii) To grant any other relief(s), which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners after some argument submit that they shall be approaching the Arbitratorcum-Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur for the redressal of the grievance but there has been delay due to pendency of the writ petition.

4. Learned State counsel submits that if they represent in next four weeks, the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion.

5. Considering the limited submissions of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of allowing the petitioners to approach the concerned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional

Patna High Court CWJC No.14238 of 2016(3) dt.28-07-2025 3/3 Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and if such petition is filed in next four weeks, the limitation petition has to be considered in the backdrop of the fact that for nine years, the petitioners were agitating the matter before the Patna High Court.

6. The counter affidavit of the State also has narrated the same facts.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U