Disposed

Suresh Prasad Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Jul 2025CWJC/15472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash a deforestation notice issued for laying a power transmission line over their raiyati land in Samastipur. The dispute was resolved through negotiated compensation of ₹2,56,000 and the line was charged. The court disposed of the writ petition, leaving petitioners free to seek compensation in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty to pursue compensation claim before District Judge/civil court.

Suresh Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15472 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Suresh Prasad Singh and Ors Son of Nageshwar Singh,

¶4

Ranjit Kumar Singh, Son of Vishwanath Singh.

¶5

Krishna Dev Singh, Son of Raj Karan Singh.

¶6

Madan Prasad Singh, Son of Maheshwar Prasad Singh, All residents of village- Maniyar, Ward No. 3, Post office- Mahmadipur, Police StationMohiuddin Nagar, District- Samsatipur.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, State of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Regional Manager, Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶12

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

¶13

The District Forest Officer, Samastipur.

¶14

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patory Samastipur.

¶15

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited, 220/132, Grid Su

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

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

¶18

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Jay Prakash Sharma, AC to EX-GP-21

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Date : 09-07-2025

¶23

The writ petition is filed to quash the Notice dated 10.07.2018 issued by the Bihar State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna vide Annexure-3 and further to direct the respondents to stop deforestation under

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.15472 of 2018 dt.09-07-2025 2/4

¶25

Mauza Mahamadipur, Mohiuddin Nagar, DistrictSamastipur, Khesra No. 1212, 1213, 1214, Khata No. 575 which is Raiyati land of petitioners.

¶26

The contents of the writ petition disclose that the petitioner is a farmer living a peaceful life in his native village, maintaining cattle and an orchard. Upon issuance of the notice by the respondent authorities, the petitioner, along with other farmers, protested against the proposed deforestation of the said orchard. The authorities are about to cut down green trees, including those in the petitioner’s orchard.

¶27

A detailed counter affidavit was also filed by respondent nos. 3 and 9. The contents of the counter affidavit disclose that the DFO, Samastipur, evaluated the matter and determined the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner which comes to ₹1,08,682/-. However, this assessment by the DFO, Samastipur, was not accepted by the petitioner. Subsequently, the working agency contacted the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patori, who directed that the dispute be resolved through mutual consent and

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.15472 of 2018 dt.09-07-2025 3/4

¶29

negotiation. Accordingly, a joint meeting was held between the petitioners, their family members, and the working agency in the presence of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Shahpur Patori. After discussion, a mutually agreed amount of ₹2,56,000/(excluding the previously paid amount of ₹80,000/-) was paid to the petitioner, his son Chandraket Kumar Singh, and others. The matter was resolved on 06.08.2018, and the said transmission line was successfully charged on 07.08.2018.

¶30

Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

On perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the dispute has been resolved. However, if the petitioners still have any grievance regarding inadequate compensation, they have an alternative remedy in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. Ors. reported in 2017(2) PLJR (SC) 152. The petitioners are at liberty to file a suit for compensation before

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.15472 of 2018 dt.09-07-2025 4/4

¶33

the concerned District Judge and they are always free to avail the remedy before the competent civil court.

¶34

With the abovesaid observation, the writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶35

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶36

vinita/-

¶37

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	11.07.2025
Transmission Date

Suresh Prasad Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Prasad Singh and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indu Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Kishor Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Reeti Kumari Vs The Branch Manager, Bank Of India and Anr.

Kamini Devi @ Kamni Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anjesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.