Bhagwan Lal Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16000 of 2014 ====================================================== Bhagwan Lal Sah Son of Late Sita Ram Sah of village- Machkuri P.O. Singhasi, P.S. Kochadhaman Prakhand Kochadaman, Distt. Kishanganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Land Acquisition Secretary, Bihar Govt. Bailey Road, Patna

2. District Magistrate, Kishanganj

3. Mukhiya of Village Machkuri Post Singhari

4. Circle Officer of Village- Machkuri

5. Head Clerk (Matibul Rahman @ Moti Rahman) of Block of village Machukuri Post Singhari P.S. Kochadaman, Distt. Kishanganj

6. Addl. District Magistrate of Collector Office of Kishanganj, Land of Acquisition and Bhoomi Sudhar Kishanganj, Collectorate

7. Land Reform Magistrate, Kishanganj

8. Sub Divisional Officer of Kishanganj, Distt. Kishanganj

9. The Superintendent of Police Kishanganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binoy Kumar Sinha-1 For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Ballabh Pd. Yadav, AAG-11 Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, AC to AAG-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2016 Heard.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for settlement of the lands in question in his favour, which has been mentioned in paragraph1 itself. The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised objection of maintainability of the present writ petition at this stage. According to him, for redressal of his valid grievances or for settlement of the lands in question, the petitioner has not approached the prescribed statutory authority, and until and unless he approaches the prescribed statutory authority under specific statute, the writ petition at this stage

Patna High Court CWJC No.16000 of 2014 (2) dt.24-11-2016 2/2 cannot be entertained. He contends that the writ petition is premature and is fit to be dismissed at this stage. Submission made by the learned State counsel appears to be correct.

Despite repeated query, the counsel for the petitioner has not shown from any document or the pleadings that he has approached the prescribed statutory authority for grant of appropriate relief(s) to him with respect to the lands in question. In that view of the matter, the reliefs prayed for on behalf of the petitioner cannot be granted.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U