Dismissed

Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad v. The State of Bihar.

Patna HC27 Jun 2022CWJC/10049/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming to be a care-taker of a Dharmshala. The court held that since the petitioner had no ownership interest or legal right over the property, he lacked locus standi to approach the court for compensation regarding land acquisition and demolition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad Vs The State of Bihar. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10049 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad Son of Late Ram Vriksha Mahto, resident of Village- Kaila, P.S.- Asthaawan, District - Nalanda.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

The Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda.

¶9

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda.

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, District - Nalanda.

¶11

The Circle Officer, Asthawan, District - Nalanda.

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Dhrajati Kumar Prasad, G.P.-14 ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 27-06-2022

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has

¶18

prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶19

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to pay the compensation against the land acquired by the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer as well as respondent District Magistrate appertaining to Survey Plot No. 1679 and 1678 area 05 dec. and 10 dec. respectively though more land has already been acquired which would be transpired after proper measurement.

¶20

(ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ for

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.10049 of 2020 dt.27-06-2022 2/2

¶22

direction to the respondent authority to pay the amount against the cost of Dharmshala which has been demolished situated at Survey Plot No. 1679 in Kaila Mauza.

¶23

(iii) Further for direction to respondent authority to pay the amount against the acquired land with statutory as well as penal interest.

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the care-taker of the Dharmshala and he has no interest in the property in question. He may be the care-taker of the Dharmshala but the original owner or the body which is looking after the Dharmshala has the legal right to move any competent Court. The petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court.

¶25

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶27

pawan/-

¶28

AFR/NAFR	N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE	N/A.
Uploading Date
Transmission Date

Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad v. The State of Bihar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand Prasad Singh @ Dayanand Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Bhulla Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Saifun @ Saifun Nisha Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Kumar Nirala @ Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Tasalim Vs The State of Bihar