ANANDI MISHRA @ ANAJI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC 25 for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that though earlier his private lands, which is the subject matter of the present writ application, were proposed to be acquired by the authorities, but the proceedings never reached their logical conclusion, and despite that, for making the road, his private land has been used. In support of such contention, learned counsel referred to Annexure- 6, which is copy of Letter No. 149 dated 27.06.2019 written by the Collector, Madhepura to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Madhepura indicating that the private land has been used for making construction and money has been asked for paying to the land owners. Learned counsel submitted that he is also covered by such communication. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to judgment dated 21.12.2019 passed in CWJC No. 17917 of 2018 in Prashant Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. It was submitted that he is similarly situated to the petitioner and had approached the Court for similar relief which was disposed off with a direction to the Collector, Madhepura and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhepura to ensure that the compensation amount with regard to the land of the petitioner which has been acquired and used by the State authorities for public purpose is paid to him. Learned counsel submitted that the Court had further clarified that as the matter had not attained finality in terms of the earlier requisition for acquisition and after coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the petitioner (Prashant Kumar Mishra) was covered, the compensation amount shall be calculated in terms of the aforesaid Act.