IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17901 of 2018 ====================================================== 1. Pappu Sah son of Late Ram Bilash Sah 2. Anurodh Rai son of Mahendra Rai 3. Bindeshwar Rai son of Chandradeep Rai 4. Sushil Kumar son of Late Sakaldeo Rai All residents of village Sahdeo Buzurg, Police Station Desari, District Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at Hazipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 4 05-01-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 not to acquire house of the petitioners in the name of so called public Road and further issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification under section 4,6,17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 with regard to the petitioners land of Khesra No. 1064 and 1092, and further pleased to Patna High Court CWJC No.17901 of 2018(4) dt.05-01-2026 2/3 issue any appropriate writ/ writs,order /orders,direction/directions commanding the respondents not to disposses the petitioners from their house in question.. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he has ancestral property over the Khesra No. 1064 and 1092 which according to information was earlier considered for acquisition in the year 2002 but no such step was ever taken. However, locals objected for construction of boundary wall leading to the cases before the appropriate authority/Court and presently it has travelled to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur. In this case, the State respondents were directed to file reply in the year 2018 (19.09.2018) but today on call, again prayer for adjournment has been made. 3. This Court has two options: either to allow the said prayer with a cost or to dispose of the matter directing the petitioner to contest the case which according to him has now travelled to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hajipur. 4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to agitate the matter before all the respondents/appropriate authority/competent Court. 5. Needless to add that the document/plea provided Patna High Court CWJC No.17901 of 2018(4) dt.05-01-2026 3/3 by the petitioner will be taken into consideration while disposing of the claim/counter at an earliest. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U