Uday Shankar Chaudhary And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23036 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Uday Shankar Chaudhary and Ors S/o Ram Hirday Chaudhary, R/o VillageHari Tajpur, P.O.- Jorpura, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur. 2.

Ram Vilash Chaudhary, S/o Ram Hirday Chaudhary, R/o Village- Hari Tajpur, P.O.- Jorpura, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, 3.

The Union of India through it Secretary, National High way Department, New Delhi.

4.

The General Manager, Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Project Implimentation Unit, 5.

The Deputy Manager, Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Project Implimentation Unit, 6.

The Collector, Samastipur.

7.

The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Samastipur. 8.

The Sub Division Officer, Samastipur.

9.

The Circle Officer Patori Block, Samastipur.

10.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sajid Salim Khan -SC25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-11-2025 Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(i) To direct the Respondent authority pay the compensation amount of Bhith land as per rule.

Patna High Court CWJC No.23036 of 2018(2) dt.10-11-2025 2/2 ii. To be further pleased to restrain the respondents from construction work road in the Bhith land of the petitioners during the pendency of this writ application.

And/or for any other appropriate relief(s) to the petitioner for which he may be found entitle in the eye of law.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have sent the matter to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act where the parties have already appeared in LARRA Case No. 561 of 2018 but for last seven years, the matter is pending.

4. In view of the fact that the matter is pending before the aforesaid authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if still not taken to its logical conclusion, the authority concerned shall be completing the entire process by 30.06.2026 inasmuch as the matter be disposed of within the aforesaid period.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U