Patna High Court - Orders
Devendra Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief ... on 31 January, 2018
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2549 of 2017
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1840 of 2016
======================================================
1. Devendra Prasad Yadav Son of Late Singheshwar Yadav Resident of
Village Zafar Nagar, P.O. Zafar Nagar, PS Mufassil, District Munger.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna
namely, Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh.
2. The District Magistrate, Menger namely Mr. Uday Narayan Singh.
3. The District Land Acquisiton Officer, Munger Mr. Vijay Kumar.
4. The Director, Inter State Water Transport Authority, namely Mr. Prashant
Bhushan Mahendru Ghat, Patna-4.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Niwas Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Khurshid Alam - Aag 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 31-01-2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to AAG-12.
At the very outset, it is pointed out on behalf of the State that Annexure-A of the show cause goes to show that the order of this Court has already been complied with and, therefore, there is no need to keep this matter pending.
However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no doubt, the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the Collector, Munger but as a matter of fact still the State has occupied the lands of the petitioner without making Patna High Court MJC No.2549 of 2017 (5) dt.31-01-2017 2/2 any acquisition proceeding legally.
From perusal of Annexure-A series of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, it would appear that the Collector has specifically mentioned in his order that encroachment has already removed and so far as the acquired lands are concerned, the Collector has reported that the petitioner has already received the compensation amount.
In my view, the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 7840 of 2016 has already been complied with and there is no need to keep this contempt petition pending and, accordingly, this contempt petition stands disposed of.
However, it is made clear that if petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A of the show cause, he may take steps in accordance with law before the appropriate forum and this order shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/-
U