Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55952 (PAT)

Abadh Kishore Singh and Ors v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/11154/2014 · 2025-06-30

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.11154 of 2014 ====================================================== 1. Abadh Kishore Singh and Ors Son of Late Ram Deni Singh 2. Abhimanu Kumar Singh @ Abhimanyu Kumar Singh 3. Akshaya Kumar Singh 4. Rajib Kumar Singh @ Rajiv Kumar 5. Sanjib Kumar Singh All sons of Late Rabindra Singh Resident of Village Dighikala Lal Pokhra, P.S- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar and Ors. 2. The Collector Vaishali at Hazipur. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ram Balak Mahto ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 30-06-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though learned counsel for the State is present. 2. The present petition has been preferred for grant of the following relief:- “For issuance of appropriate writ/writs for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation at the market value of the lands of the petitioners, acquired for construction of District Jail Vaishali at Hajipur i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per k. far sairat and Rs. 10,000/- per k. for Bhitt land. And adding 15% soletium with 6% interest from Patna High Court CWJC No.11154 of 2014(3) dt.30-06-2025 2/2 the date of dispossession i.e. Jan 78. And to pay four times of the value of Pakka well by way of compensation in accordance with new Act (5000 X 4) for which no award was prepared with 15% soletium and 6% interest theron.” 3. On 14.09.2017, when the Co-ordinate Bench took up the matter, the record shows that none appeard for the petitioners. It seems the petitioners have lost the interest in the case. 4. Accordingly, the present case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Ankit Kumar/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U