IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19538 of 2018 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Pandey Son of Late Laxmi Kant Pandey, Resident of Village- Amawan, P.S.- Asthawan, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda, District- Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 4. The Circle Officer, Asthawan, P.S.- Asthawan, District- Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 5 05-01-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner against the land acquired by for mauja Amawan thana no. 220, plot no. 2578, khata no. 03 area-62.5 decimals and plot no. 2424 Area 5- 3/4 decimals which has acqauired for Railway line Daniawan- Barbigha Broad gauge line under Eastern Central Railway, but till today the Patna High Court CWJC No.19538 of 2018(5) dt.05-01-2026 2/2 petitioner has not been paid compensation by the land Acquisition Department.” 3. Learned State counsel has pointed out that earlier the petitioner wanted compensation of Plot No. 2424 but after it was recorded that Plot No. 2424 has not been acquired, at the later stage, plea has been taken that it is Plot No. 2414. Further submission is that the column of the claimant has been left empty and the petitioner never made any claim over the Plot No.2414 and as such, the amount has been deposited in the court. 4. This counter affidavit has been filed in the year 2019 after service of copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.08.2019 and there is no rejoinder to it. 5. This Court is satisfied that no claim of the petitioner is made out, Plot No. 2424 has not been acquired whereas the petitioner has never made claim for Plot No. 2414. 6. However, since there is no appearance, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U