Ranjan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.2118 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2941 of 2014 ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar Singh S/o Late Chunni Singh resident of village + Post Chaugai, P.S. Morar, District Buxar At Present Jagdamba Bhawan, Civil Line, P.O. Buxar, P.S. Buxar, Town, District Buxar ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The General Manager, Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd., Patna
4. The District Magistrate - Cum - Collector Bhojpur at Ara
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah
6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ara
7. M/s Tilla Construction and Contract Pvt. Ltd. 304, B - Sagar Sarita Co - Operative Housing Society, Meena Nagar Wassi West Maharashtra, Pin Code 401202 null null ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Kalyan Shankar For the Respondent/s :
Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 08-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No interference is warranted with the order of the Learned Single Judge, because fictitious and stale claims are not required to be entertained at the convenience and the choosing of the litigant.
It is vehemently argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant that since he was a minor he could not assail his claim
Patna High Court LPA No.2118 of 2016(10) dt.08-01-2018 2/2 before the concerned authorities. It is not clear that when he has attained majority and even otherwise the compensation was given to the Karta of the family, if there was acquisition and, therefore, even if he was a minor his interest was taken care of, since the property in question did not belong to him individually but was a joint family property.
Appeal is dismissed. No interference is warranted with the order impugned.
The question of non-payment of the compensation so worked out can be demonstrated before the authorities and cannot be established before a Court of law on mere suspicion. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) skm/- U