Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60944 (PAT)

Hari Lal Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/14049/2017 · 2025-04-29

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.14049 of 2017 ====================================================== Hari Lal Prasad Yadav Son of Late Madhuri Yadav, Resident of Village- Madhuban, Post Office- Khamhauti, Police Station- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar and Ors 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Land Acquisition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Saharsa. 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa. 6. The Circle Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur Block, District- Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rana Hasan, Adv. Mrs. Huma Yunus, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay- Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 29-04-2025 Heard Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s) duly assisted by Mrs. Huma Yunus and Mrs. Nutan Sahay representing the State. 2. The present application has been filed: for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the rate to be determined under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Patna High Court CWJC No.14049 of 2017(2) dt.29-04-2025 2/2 (hereinafter be called, 'the new Act') and not in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be called, 'the old Act'). 3. After some argument, Mr. Ashraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that he may be allowed to approach the competent Civil Court as the stand of the petitioner(s) is/are that they have not been suitably compensated. 4. Said liberty is always there to the petitioner(s). If they approach the Competent Civil Court, the Court concerned shall take into account the fact that the writ petition was pending since the year 2017 while dealing with the limitation petition. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of. Vijay Singh/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U