IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6756 of 2025 ====================================================== Ashok Kushwaha @ Ashok Mahato @ Ashok Prasad Kushwaha Son of Late Shiv Mangal Mahato, Resident of Village- Kalawari Majhariya, P.S., Aadapur, District East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran. 3. The DCLR, Department of Land Reform, Raxaul, East Champaran. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Motihari, East Champaran. 5. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Motihari, East Champaran. 6. The S.D.O., Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran. 7. The Circle Officer, Aadapur, District East Champaran. 8. The Anchal Amin, Aadapur, Motihari, East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG 9 Mr. AC to AAG 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 02-09-2025 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application claiming that he is the owner of the land, bearing Khata No. 86, plot no. 664, area 05 kathas 19 dhurs 12 kanwa, situated at mouza Kalwari Majhariya, Police Station Adapur, in the district of East Champaran, upon which the State respondents have started construction of road without acquiring the land and paying compensation. 3. Learned Counsel for the State submits that for the similar Patna High Court CWJC No.6756 of 2025(2) dt.02-09-2025 2/2 relief, the petitioner has approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2640 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court, vide order, dated 25.02.2025, with liberty to the petitioner to take the recourse of alternative remedy provided under the law. Instead of taking recourse of alternative remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for similar relief. 4. Having considered the submission of the parties and the fact that the petitioner filed the present writ application for the similar relief, which was the subject matter of the previous writ application in CWJC No. 2640 of 2025, without availing the alternative remedy, this writ application is dismissed being barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. 5. The petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy provided under the law. Prabhakar Anand/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) U √