Six consolidated writ applications filed under Article 226 by landowners agitating for compensation under the 2013 Act were dismissed as premature by the Patna High Court because the matter remained at the stage of assessment.
The writ applications were disposed of as premature.
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.2017 of 2018
=========================================================== 1. Md. Heyatullah S/o Abdul Ghafoor Resident of Village - Manauwer, P.S. - Mahishi (Jalai), District - Saharsa.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2691 of 2018
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3409 of 2018
===========================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.2017 of 2018 dt.18-09-2018
2
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3701 of 2018 ===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3793 of 2018
===========================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.2017 of 2018 dt.18-09-2018
3
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3798 of 2018 =========================================================== 1. Shabbir Ahmad S/o Md. Ishaque Resident of Village- Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur, District- Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3968 of 2018
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.2017 of 2018 dt.18-09-2018
4
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.2017 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. VIKASH KUMAR- SC10 (In CWJC No.2691 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. ANJANI KUMAR- AAG4 (In CWJC No.3409 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. MD. KHURSHID ALAM- AAG12 (In CWJC No.3701 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. VINAY KRITI SINGH -GA2 (In CWJC No.3793 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. VIKASH KUMAR-SC11 (In CWJC No.3798 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. HARISH KUMAR- GP8 (In CWJC No.3968 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Abdus Shakoor For the Respondent/s : Mr. HARISH KUMAR- GP8
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 18-09-2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties in these writ
applications.
The aforesaid writ applications have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by different land
Patna High Court CWJC No.2017 of 2018 dt.18-09-2018
5
owners claiming the referred amount of compensation for their land acquired under the new Act, 2013.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have specifically stated in their counter affidavits that the compensation has not been decided as yet for the reason that the matter is at the stage of assessment of the compensation amount.
Hence, the prayer is premature.
Accordingly, these writ applications stand disposed of as premature.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Nitesh/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| UploadingDate | 19.09.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ applications challenging the delay in compensation assessment are maintainable.
Md. Heyatullah
Mateen Ahmad
Abutorab Azad
Anwar Ali Khan
Anisur Rahman
Shabbir Ahmad
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
