Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23402 (PAT)

Mannu Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/15344/2016 · 2025-08-05

Rajiv Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15344 of 2016 ====================================================== Mannu Singh son of Late Ajay Singh, Resident of Village Raghopur, Dumari Buzurg, P.S. Naya Gaon, District Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran. 4. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Chapra at Saran. 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Chapra at Saran. 6. Sri Vikas Kumar Singh, son of Late Satrughan Singh, Resident of Dumari Buzurg, Post- Dumari Buzurg, P.S. Naya Gaon, District Chapra at Saran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 05-08-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12 is present. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to the Respondent concern for complying and enforcing the order dated 02.03.2016 passed through Memo No. 343 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Chapra at Saran whereby and where under he has Patna High Court CWJC No.15344 of 2016(2) dt.05-08-2025 2/2 directed the Respondent No. 6 for depositing the amount of Rs.7,28,682.24p (Rupees Seven Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two and Twenty Four paise only) which has not been deposited by the Respondent No. 6 till today; and/or for any other relief(s) for which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. On 04.08.2025 also, both in the forenoon and afternoon, there was no appearance. 4. It seems that the petitioner has lost interest in the case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U