Kashinath Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19752 of 2024 ====================================================== Kashinath Mishra Son of Dharmnath Mishra Resident of Village- Takipur, Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Siwan (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Divisional Commissioner, Saran, Chapra.
3.
The Competent Authority-cum- District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan. 4.
The District Magistrate-Cum- Collector, Siwan. 5.
The Additional Collector, Siwan.
6.
The Circle Officer, Maharajganj, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Choubey For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Shailash Kumar, AC to GP-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2025 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AC to GP-5.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some portion of the land of the petitioner was acquired for construction of Ram Janki Path by the authorities, but then compensation has not been paid to him on the ground that there was objection by his relatives, based on which he filed a representation dated 11-32022 before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan, (Annexure-1) seeking his compensation, based on which the Circle Officer was requested by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan, to hold an enquiry, as would manifest from Letter No. 1011 dated 7-8-2024, issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan (Annexure-3), based on the said letter dated 7-8-
Patna High Court CWJC No.19752 of 2024(2) dt.23-01-2025 2/2 2024, it is submitted that the Circle Officer submitted his report contained in letter dated 9-9-2024 (Annexure-4). 3.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that from perusal of Annexure-4, it would manifest that the same does not even remotely suggest that the land belongs to the petitioner, rather what has been recorded in the inquiry report of the Circle Officer, Maharajganj, is that the land belongs to the maternal grand-father of the petitioner and the sides of the maternal grand-father are in possession of the land and there is no dispute with respect to the land, as such the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the inquiry report of the Circle Officer does not even remotely suggest that the land belongs to the petitioner.
4.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the inquiry report of the Circle Officer, Maharajganj, the Court finds no merit in the writ application. 5.
Accordingly, the instant writ application is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U