Ashutosh Kumar Trivedi v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of.
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the UOI :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate Mr. Yeshoneel Rantam, Advocate Mrs. Neha Kumari, Advocate Mr. Avadesh Pandey, Sr. CGC Mrs. Punam Kumari Singh, CGC Mr. Vaibhav Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7 For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY : 3 15-09-2025 Heard Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the ORAL ORDER petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, learned SC-7.
The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
(i) Respondents may be directed to calculate/recalculate the compensation of land under acquisition for construction of Head Quarter of 48th Bt. of 1.T.B.P. at Chetharia Pir, P.S.- Korha, District - Katihar in terms of Section 26 read with Section 24(1) of the new Act, 1.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Patna High Court CWJC No.10594 of 2016(3) dt.15-09-2025 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and pay the same to the petitioner as till date neither any award has been prepared to the notice of petitioner nor a single farthing has been paid as land compensation. (ii) And/or the matter may be referred to the authority under the Act for determination of land compensation under Section 64 read with Section 26 of the New Act in view of various objections raised by the petitioner regarding lesser valuation, incorrect/lesser measurement of land as well as trees standing there on and also regarding lesser counting of number of trees.
Pursuant to the last order, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Katihar, Mr. Ajmal Khurshid is present in the Court. Though a proper counter-affidavit has not been filed, learned SC-7 on the basis of the discussion he had with the said officer has submitted before this Court that the family/agnates are having dispute relating to the land in question which has delayed the payment to them.
Upon query, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that they have preferred a Suit No. 70 of 2005 (Most. Bageshwari Devi & Ors. vs. Most. Janki Devi & Ors.) with respect to the land Patna High Court CWJC No.10594 of 2016(3) dt.15-09-2025 before the competent Civil Court, Katihar in which the other side has also appeared. The same is pending before the said Court.
Learned State counsel submits that they are ready to abide by the final order passed by the Competent Civil Court.
This Court is also of the view that when there is dispute between the parties, they have already filed a suit which is presently pending before a competent Court, Katihar, the decision of the same will follow the flow of compensation amount to the land holder.
7. Since the matter relates to payment of compensation, it is expected that the Suit No. 70 of 2005 (Most. Bageshwari Devi & Ors. vs. Most. Janki Devi & Ors.) shall be taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.
With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of.
The personal appearance of District Land Acquisition Officer, Katihar stands dispensed with. Adnan/- U (Rajiv Roy, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.