Satyadeo Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18248 of 2019 ====================================================== Satyadeo Singh, Aged about 94 years, Male, Son of Late Sadhu Saran Singh, Resident of Village Renua, P.S. Hussainganj, District Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Director, Land Acquisition, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation, Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

6.

The District Magistrate, Siwan.

7.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan.

8.

The Circle Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan.

9.

Sandip Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Singh, Petty Contractor, Resident of Village Renua, P.S. Hussainganj, District Siwan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC19 Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, AC to SC19 For B.P.N.N.

:

Mr. Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to make payment of compensation amount with interest for acquisition of land of the petitioner bearing Plot No.8/318, area 4 Katha and Plot No.5, area 4 Katha 1 Dhur for construction of bridge over Daha river. It is admitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in CWJC No.3813

Patna High Court CWJC No.18248 of 2019(2) dt.04-09-2019 2/2 of 2014 on 27.09.2016, the Collector, Siwan registered Misc. Case No.124/2016-17 and considered the representation of the petitioner. The Collector found that no part of the land of the petitioner is encroached for construction of the bridge over the river nor any excavation in the lands of the petitioner for taking soil is made and rejected the petition of the petitioner for grant of compensation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Prayer is allowed.

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the case before an appropriate forum. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U