Bipin Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1595 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.

Bipin Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ramanandan Prasad Yadav, Grandson of Late Dukha Yadav Resident of Village- Rajpur, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station and District- Madhepura.

2.

Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Son of Late Ramanandan Prasad Yadav, Grandson of Late Dukha Yadav Resident of Village- Rajpur, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station and District- Madhepura. 3.

Manjesh Kumar Nirala Son of Late Ramanandan Prasad Yadav, Grandson of Late Dukha Yadav Resident of Village- Rajpur, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station and District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, Police Station and DistrictSaharsa. 3.

The District Magistrate, Madhepura, Police Station and District- Madhepura. 4.

The Competent Authority-cum- District Land Acquisition Officer, Police Station and District- Madhepura.

5.

The Project Director, N.H. 107, Maheshkhunt, Saharsa Purnia. 6.

The Circle Officer, Madhepura, Block and Police Station- Madhepura and District- Madhepura.

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Durgesh Kumar For the Respondents :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad (GP14) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-07-2022 Heard the parties.

Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of the State reads as follows:- " 13. That the statement made in Para10, 11 & 12 of the writ petition it is stated that petitioners raised objection after the due period that is 30 days of notification dated 17.06.2015 and hence the petition of petitioners were not tenable".

Patna High Court CWJC No.1595 of 2020(3) dt.04-07-2022 2/2 The contention of the State is that the representation/objection has been submitted beyond the time prescribed in the notices and therefore, the same has not been considered.

The respondents are directed to decide the representation/objection in view of the notification dated 17.06.2015 within three weeks from today after hearing the petitioners If the petitioners are satisfied with the representation, then they will accept the award. If they are not satisfied with the reasons rejecting their representation/objection, they may move the Collector, who shall proceed in accordance with law and in view of the National Highways Authority of India Act 1988.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) BT/Shishir U