IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3230 of 2010 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH. SON OF LATE SRI KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AUSANI, P.O.- MANGALPUR, P.S.- LAUKARIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH, 4. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BETTIAH DISTRICT, WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 6. COMMANDANT, SASASTRA SEEMA BUL, BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 7. GHANSHYAM SINGH, SON OF LATE SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AUSANI, P.O.- MANGALPUR, P.S.- LAUKARIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 23.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2010, as contained in Annexure-10 to this application, whereunder request of the petitioner contained in representation dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure-9) to derequisition the lands in-question has been rejected observing that possession of the lands in-question was taken on 29.7.2008. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier the matter concerning the derequisition of the lands in-question had come to this Court and under orders dated 28th July, 2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 560 of 2008, Annexure-8, Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice had asked the authorities to consider the derequisition of the lands in-question if the authorities have not taken possession of the lands in-question. In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench petitioner filed representation dated 12.11.2008, Annexure-9 which was rejected under the impugned order holding that possession of the lands in-question was taken on - 2 - 29.7.2008, just the next day of the passing of the orders of the Division Bench. Learned counsel submitted that orders of the Division Bench dated 28th July, 2008, Annexure-8 was passed in presence of the State counsel and in view of the observations of the Division Bench the authorities ought not to have proceeded to take possession of the lands in-question on 29.7.2008. 4. From perusal of the orders of the Division Bench dated 28th July, 2008, Annexure-8 it does not appear that the Division Bench restrained the authorities from taking possession of the lands in-question if the authorities had not taken possession of the lands by then, as there was no restraint over the authorities from taking possession of the lands in-question under the orders of the Division Bench and the authorities have taken possession before the representation of the petitioner could be filed on 12.11.2008 I do not see any illegality in the action of the State-respondent in taking possession of the lands in-question. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)