Dismissed

Purushottam Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC27 Mar 2019CWJC/5261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged compensation adequacy alleging misclassification of commercial land as agricultural. Court noted statutory remedy exists and disposed of application, granting liberty to approach the Central Government under the National Highway Act for compensation determination by an Arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with liberty to approach the Central Government for determination of compensation amount by an Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the Act.

Purushottam Singh Vs The State of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5261 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Purushottam Singh Son of Kedar Singh Resident of Village- Khaira, P.O. Sikariya, P.S. Darigaon (Sasaram), District- Rohtas Sasaram

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The Principal Secretary-cum- Land Acquisition Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Project Director, National Highwa Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highway Project Implementation Unit, Sasaram.

¶9

The Collector Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶10

The Additional Collector Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶11

The Competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rameshwar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy (GP-18) For NHAI Mr. S.N.Pathak ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 27-03-2019 The petitioner has a grievance that against acquisition of his land for extension of four lane to six lane, for N.H.-2, the amount of compensation determined is not adequate, for the reasons that the land which has been acquired is commercial in nature and for the purpose of determination of compensation the respondents have considered the same to be the agricultural land.

¶16

This is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner has statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highway

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.5261 of 2019(2) dt.27-03-2019 2/2

¶18

Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which allows the petitioner to make an application for determination of the amount by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has so far not received the amount of compensation determined by the respondent, which according to the petitioner is not proper and, therefore, not acceptable.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make an application for determination of the amount of compensation as contemplated under Section 3-G(5) of the Act.

¶21

This application stands disposed of.

¶22

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶23

arun/-

¶24

Purushottam Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Ranjeet Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dharmendra Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Rabiullah Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Singh @ Satyendra Prasad Sharma @ S. P. Sharma Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Paswan @ Santosh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Samsudin @ Md. Samsudin Siddique @ Samasudin Miya Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.