Ram Chandra Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1510 of 2019 ====================================================== Ram Chandra Pandey village- Bajitpur, Karnail, P.S. - Halai (O.P.) Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar and Ors through the chief secretary,Government of Bihar,Patna

2. The Principal Secretary cum 2nd Appellate Authority,Revenue and Land Reforms Department Governmet of Bihar,Patna

3. The Divisional Commissioner,Darbhanga Division Darbhanga cum 1st Apellate Authority Darbhanga

4. The District Magistrate Samatipur Samastipur,Bihar

5. The District Public Grievance Redressal Officer,Samastipur District Samastipur

6. The District Land Acquisition Officer Samastipur Samastipur Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sameer Ranjan For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Ray ( Gp 18) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-01-2019 The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondentState of Bihar to measure his land bearing Khata No. 149, Khesra No. 715, 716 (old), 1436 (new) in his presence and pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, against the area of land (29.9 decimal) acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the case of the petitioner that whereas area of the land of the petitioner, which has been acquired is 29.9 decimal, compensation against 0.19 decimal only has been paid. It seems that the petitioner had approached the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Samastimpur and the Appellate Authority under the Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2011.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1510 of 2019(2) dt.25-01-2019 2/2 Orders have been passed by both the authorities wherein they have specifically recorded, that the land, in question, was measured in presence of the petitioner/his brother and based on such measurement, the compensation amount has already been paid to him. The claim of the petitioner that 29.9 decimal of land has been acquired, has been turned down by the appellate authority specifically, as is evident from Annexure-8 of the writ application.

There is no averment at all in the writ application, as to when the process of acquisition of land had begun. The nature of dispute, which is being raised, cannot be gone into in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The nature of relief, which is being sought, cannot be granted. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law, as permissible under the Statutes or otherwise.

This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ashish/- U