Saroj Kumar Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Madhu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5243 of 2016 ====================================================== Saroj Kumar Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Madhu Son of Vaidehi Saran Singh resident of Village- Basantpur , PS Pirpainty District Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and land Reforms Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Land Acquisition , Govt. of Bihar,Patna.

4. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.

5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pirpainty ,District Bhagalpur.

7. The Circle Officer, Pirpainty, District -Bhagalpur.

8. The Block Development Officer, Pirpainty District Bhagalpur.

9. The District Land Acquisition Officer,Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar, AC to SC-32 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard the parties.

The only grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the lands belonging to him, fully detailed in paragraph-13 of the writ petition, has been acquired for Pirpainti Thermal Power Project in Land Acquisition Case No. 25 of 2010-11 and, accordingly, an award was prepared, but quantum of award, so fixed, is not at par with the other persons of the locality, whose lands have also been acquired for the said purpose.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at least entitled for similar treatment for the purposes of grant of compensation for acquisition of the lands in question.

In view of the nature of grievances/claims raised on behalf of the petitioner, noticed above, this Court is of the opinion that instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court asking

Patna High Court CWJC No.5243 of 2016 (2) dt.12-07-2016 2/2 the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, the interest of justice shall be sub-served if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation with all supporting documents before the District Collector, Bhagalpur, raising all the grievances, which have been raised in the present writ petition, noticed above. It is ordered accordingly.

If such a representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the District Collector, Bhagalpur either himself or any other competent authority of the respondent State, as per his direction, shall be obliged to consider and decide the claims of the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the authorities concerned, besides the private individuals, if any, at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner.

If on consideration of the materials and after hearing the parties, the competent authority comes to a conclusion that claims raised on behalf of the petitioner are admissible to him, then consequential order shall also be issued for grant of such admissible claims without any unnecessary further delay. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition and this is left to be decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U