The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition claiming land acquisition compensation. Due to the lack of a rejoinder by the petitioner addressing disputed factual assertions by respondents, the matter required a factual trial beyond writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21942 of 2012
====================================================== Md. Mazrool, Son Of Late Md. Junab, Resident Of Village - Ward No. 6, P.O. & P.S - Mehsol, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Sitamarhi 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bagamati Sub-Division, Muzaffarpur 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, GA-9 Mr.Shakib Ayaz, AC to GA-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
8 15-12-2015 Heard the parties.
The claim raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition is based on purely disputed questions of facts in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5. In above view of the matter, on the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned on 14.10.2015 enabling him to file a rejoinder to the averments made in the aforesaid counter affidavit. Despite the aforesaid indulgence granted by this Court as also direction issued therein, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner disputing the assertion of the respondents that the land of the petitioner was never acquired; therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation.
In view of the fact that the claim is based on disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in a proceeding filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.21942 of 2012 (8) dt.15-12-2015
2
petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum/court for grant of appropriate relief(s).
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Arvind/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can decide disputed questions of facts raised in a writ petition regarding land acquisition without a rejoinder.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when it hinges on unanswered factual assertions by respondents.
Md. Mazrool
The State Of Bihar
The District Magistrate Sitamarhi
The Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi
The Land Acquisition Officer, Bagamati Sub-Division, Muzaffarpur
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
