Dismissed

Kailash Ram v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Dec 2019CWJC/25465/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge civil writ jurisdiction bench, dismissing the petition challenging acquisition orders. The court held the Purcha issued to the petitioner remained ineffective as he never remained in possession and the owner was not properly noticed, validating the lower courts' decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner advised to file suit for redressal of grievance.

Kailash Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25465 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kailash Ram, aged about 57 years, Male, son of Late Ganauri Ram, resident of Village Barun Tola, Chandar Bigha, P.O. and Police Station + Anchal Barun, District Aurangabad (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad.

¶8

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Aurangabad, Patna.

¶9

The Circle Officer, Barun, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶10

Dhanjee Singh, son of Butan Singh, resident of Village- Gobardhan Bigha, P.O., Police Station and Anchal- Barun, District- Aurangabad.

¶11

Binod Singh, son of Butan Singh, resident of Village- Gobardhan Bigha, P.O., Police Station and Anchal- Barun, District- Aurangabad.

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subash Chandra Yadav (Gp15)

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 19-12-2019 Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

¶17

The petitioners by filing this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 01.09.2016, passed in Title Verification Case No.4/2016-17 and order dated 16.01.2017 and 25.07.2019, passed in Title Verification Appeal No.4/201617/145/2017.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of Khesra No.1712, Khata No.224, situated in Mauza

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.25465 of 2019(2) dt.19-12-2019 2/3

¶20

Barun for construction of D.F.C.C. Railway Project was to be acquired. 20 decimals of land of Plot No.1712, Khata No.224 was settled in favour of the petitioner in the year 1970-71 but the respondents no.5 and 6 filed petition for getting the compensation on the basis of some sale deeds. The petitioner filed petition before the Circle Officer, Barun for putting the petitioner in possession of the land as the petitioner is Purcha holder. The Circle Officer referred the matter to the D.C.L.R., Aurangabad. The D.C.L.R. by order dated 16.01.2017 illegally held that the Purcha issued in favour of the petitioner is ineffective and illegal. The D.C.L.R. also erroneously found the second party-respondents in possession of the land. It is further submitted that the Collector, Aurangabad also illegally affirmed the order of the D.C.L.R. It is also submitted that the petitioner is Purcha holder which was duly issued by the competent authority and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation.

¶21

Having considered the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the orders of the D.C.L.R. and the Collector, it is evident that the petitioner claimed the land by virtue of Purcha issued in Settlement Case No.244/70-71 but the same was never acted upon. The petitioner never remained in possession of the

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.25465 of 2019(2) dt.19-12-2019 3/3

¶23

land. The respondents claimed the land by virtue of the sale deed. The ex-landlord filed the return and got compensation vide Compensation Case No.273/23/53-54 and Case No.43/5354. The landlord executed the sale deed in favour of the respondents and the respondents after getting their names mutated came in possession. There is nothing to show even on the date of issuance of Purcha that the land owner was noticed and heard and purcha was issued in favour of the petitioner in accordnce with law, therefore, I find that both the courts have rightly held that the Purcha issued in favour of the petitioner remained ineffective.

¶24

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

The petitioner, if so advised, may file suit for redressal of his grievance.

¶26

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

S.KUMAR/-

¶28

Kailash Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh Yada Vs The State of Bihar

Pachu Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Narad Kumar @ Narad Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Punam Kumari Vs The Chairman Bihar School Examination Board

Suman Kumari @ Smt. Suman Kumari @ Suman Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Kumar Upadhyay @ Umesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar