Chourasi Yadav Alias Chourasi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1005 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14191 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Chourasi Yadav alias Chourasi Mahto Son of Masudan Yadav 2.

Nursing Yadav, Son of Sitabi Yadav Both residents of Village- Umari, P.S. Banka, District- Banka. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Collector, Banka 2.

The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur 3.

The Collector, Banka 4.

The Anchal Adhikari, Banka, District- Banka.

5.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Banka. 6.

Guhi Yadav, Son of Late Masudan Yadav Resident of Village- Umari, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka.

7.

Ajab Lal Yadav, Son of Late Masudan Yadav Resident of Village- Umari, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md.Khurshid Alam (Aag12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 24-06-2024 The appellants claim is that they were entitled to 1/4th share in a land which was acquired for the construction of the railway line from Deoghar to Sultanganj. Even according to them, the entire compensation was received by the Respondents No. 6 & 7 and they did not specify the time at which they came

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1005 of 2019 dt.24-06-2024 2/2 to know of this receipt of money by the party respondents.

2. The appellants ought to have filed a suit against the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in whose favour the compensation amount was disbursed at the appropriate time. The appellants, however, filed an application before the Public Grievance Redressal Officer eight years after the award money was paid. The learned Single Judge found that there was no cause for interference, especially since the appellants had not objected to the disbursal of amounts to the respondents, who are the brothers of the 1st appellant.

3. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed. The appeal stands dismissed. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) sujit/siddharthAFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.06.2024 Transmission Date