Shree Kant Sharma And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8060 of 2024 ====================================================== Surendra Kumar Jaiswal Son of Ram Avtar Lal Bhagat, Resident of Fulwari Naya Tola, P.O and P.S. and District- Katihar, Pin Code- 854105. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

Purnea University, Purnea, Through its Registrar. 4.

Vice Chancellor, Purnea University, Purnea.

5.

Registrar, Purnea University, Purnea.

6.

B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, Through its Registrar. 7.

Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 8.

Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura 9.

Principal, D.S. College, Katihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Addl. Advocate General 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-06-2024 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-4.

2. This order be read in continuation of the order dated 06.05.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner though submits that so far as category for which compensation has been paid, he is dissatisfied and will be taking up the matter before an appropriate authority, so far as the actual compensation amount is concerned, contrary to the statement made by the respondents

Patna High Court CWJC No.8060 of 2024(3) dt.19-06-2024 2/2 in the counter affidavit actually in para 10, he has received only Rs. 15,80,704 and not Rs. 17,96,012 as claimed by the respondent.

4. Copy of the reply has been served upon the State Counsel and his submission is that he will look into the matter.

5. So far as the category part is concerned, the petitioner will be taking steps before appropriate authority. However, so far as the dispute regarding compensation amount is concerned inasmuch as while the respondents claimed that they have paid Rs. 17,96,012, the claim of the petitioner is that he has received only Rs. 15,80,704, the respondent no. 3 (The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad) is duty bound to look into the matter and clarify the same to the petitioner in next three months.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Failure to do so in three months and if it is found that against Rs. 17,96,012 only Rs. 15,80,704 has been paid, the petitioner will be entitled to interest of 6% thereafter. (Rajiv Roy, J) Guddu/- U