IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12480 of 2018 ====================================================== 1. Raman Nagule 2. Prasun Saurav Singh Both S/o Late Laxman Narayan Singh 3. Chandan Kumar Singh S/o Late Radha Singh All R/o Bundel Toli, P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna 3. The Additional District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna 4. The Chief G.M., B.S.R.D. Corporation, Patna 5. Shekhar Singh S/o Late Ram Ranvijay Singh R/o Mohalla- Bundeltoli, P.S.- Malasalami, District- Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14 For the BSRDC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 5 10-02-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State as also respondent no.4, the Bihar State Road Development Corporation are present. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by A.D.L.A.O., Patna in L.A. Case no-6/15-16 where in he has withhold the payment of compensation to the petitioners of Patna High Court CWJC No.12480 of 2018(5) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 their lands under acquisition holding that the land is a sewayet land and not raiyati land and that so long the raiyati nature of land is not decided by the court in pending title suit it would not be proper to make compensation to any interested person and further for a direction either to make payment of compensation or to refer the matter to LARR Authority to decide title because the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the Act. The order is contained in annexure-15 to this writ petition.” 3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that the relief could not be extended to the petitioners as there is title suit bearing Title Suit No. 68 of 1991 is pending before competent Civil Court. 4. From the record, it seems that the petitioner failed to appear on 10.02.2023 also when it was called before a coordinate Bench. 5. It seems the petitioners have lost interest in the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U