Ramanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23287 of 2018 ====================================================== Ramanand Prasad Son of Late Dashrath Prasad Resident of Village Senuari, P.O P.S Anchal Wajirganj, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The District Magistrate, Gaya-cum-District Land Acquistion Officer, Gaya. 3.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Control Yojnma, Patna. 4.

The Chief Enginner, Irrigation Department, Patna. 5.

The Superintending Engineer, irrigation Dpartment, Wazirganj, Gaya. 6.

The executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajan Prakash, AC to GA2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-11-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.

2. The present application has been preferred: for issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondents, including a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay the compensation of the acquired land at commercial rate (and also for grant of compensation for trees and house) as the land in acquisition is of commercial purpose and in surrounding lands are being sold @ Rs. 2 lac per decimal but the respondents are paying @agriculturable lands @ rate which is

Patna High Court CWJC No.23287 of 2018(3) dt.11-11-2025 2/2 lesser and also for quashing Annexure 16 to this petition or be pleased to pass such other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

3. Leaned State Counsel has taken this Court to Annexure 16 to show that pursuant to the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in CWJC No. 8244 of 2008 (disposed of on 30.08.2013), actually four years later, Misc. Case No. 01 of 2017 was preferred before the District Magistrate, Gaya which came to be rejected on 10.08.2018. The same has not even been challenged.

4. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance, dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U