Rajesh Chandra Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15163 of 2016 ====================================================== Rajesh Chandra Jha, son of Late Dinesh Chandra Jha, resident of Siyaram Nagar, Bhikhanpur, P.S.- Ishakchak, Distt- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary.

2. Central Valuation Committee, through its Chairman Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. District Valuation Committee, Bhagalpur through its Chairman.

5. Collector Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

6. District Sub-Registrar, Bhagalpur District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, AC to AAG- 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 11-09-2017 Petitioner has filed this writ petition with regard to the action taken and wants quashing of the Gazette notification by which new Minimum Valuation Register has been implemented by the State Government with effect from 01.02.2016. Claiming that the statutory requirements for fixation of minimum valuation rights have not been followed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is also stated that there is no consideration of the representation submitted by Eastern Bihar Chamber of Commerce, Builders and Developers Association and some social organizations.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15163 of 2016 (6) dt.11-09-2017 2/2 On going through the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the averments made in para 8 onwards, we find that various requirements in the matter have been taken note of and notifications were issued in the daily Newspaper, as is evident from para 11 of the counter affidavit, and objections were called for and thereafter the decision was taken on various executive and administrative consideration for fixing the valuation right for a particular area after inviting objections. Now in the PIL we see no reason to interfere with the matter. The documents filed to the counter affidavit, Annexure-C onwards, show notifications issued inviting objections and the consideration of the objections by the Committee, which met on 28.01.2016, as is evident from Annexure-D filed along with the counter affidavit. Taking note of all the matters, we see no reason to interfere with the matter. The application, therefore, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U