Jit Narayan Tiwary Andanr v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7152 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Jit Narayan Tiwary andanr S/o Late Haridwar Tiwary 2.

Bishwanath Tiwary S/o Late Haridwar Tiwary resident of village - Kirhindi, P.S. Shivsagar District - Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Competent Authority-cum-D.L.A.O. Rohtas.

3.

D.C.L.R. Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

Anchal Adhikari Sheosagar Rohtas.

5.

Ramchandra Singh S/o Late Roushan Singh resident of vill. P.O. Kirhindi, P.S. Shivsagar, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ajay Bihari Sinha, G.A.-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-07-2025 No one appears on the behalf of the petitioners though the State is present.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order 15.9.14 passed by competent authority-cum-DLAO, Rohtas in land acquisition case No.14A/201011/railway by which the competent authority has passed the order to give the compensation of the land measuring area 76 decimal to respondent no.5 and compensation of 5 decimal will be given to the petitioners when

Patna High Court CWJC No.7152 of 2015(3) dt.08-07-2025 2/2 the title suit no.2/2012 pending before the Munsif-1, Sasaram will be decided which is wrong. illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. Learned State counsel has taken this Court to the order passed by the competent authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram dated 15.09.2014 in Land Acquisition Case No. 14A of 2010-11 (Railways) (Jit Narayan Tiwary vs. Ramchandra Singh) and submits that a Title Suit No. 02 of 2012 is pending between the parties before the learned Munsif-I, Sasaram and in that background, the concerned authority held that the decision of the disputed land shall await the final outcome of the title suit. The contention is that the parties have already pursued the title suit.

4. In that background, the order in question need no interference.

5. However, since there is no appearance, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U