IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE No.3651 of 2010 ==================================================== 1. Mahendra Prasad Sahu S/o Late Jahuni Sah, resident of Mohalla- Simarahi Bazar, P.O. Raghopur, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul 2. Laxmi Devi W/o Late Bhatwanlal Sahu, resident of Mohalla- Simarahi Bazar, P.O. Raghopur, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul 3. Urmila Devi, W/o Late Yugendra Prasad Sahu, resident of Mohalla- Simarahi Bazar, P.O. Raghopur, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul ….. …….. - Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Navin Kumar Singh, Supaul ……. Opposite parties/ Contemnors 05/ 14.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In compliance of my order dated 29.6.2011, District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul is present and states that having received the order of the High Court dated 8.12.2009, Annexure-1, he had written letter to the District Superintendent of Education to confirm whether any Government school building was raised over the lands in question. As no reply was received from the District Superintendent of Education, reminder was issued and matter remained pending. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul further stated that he learnt about the contempt 2 proceedings for the first time on 17.5.2011 whereafter for ensuring compliance of the order of the High Court dated 8.12.2009, Annexure-1, issued notice to the petitioners dated 6.6.2011, which was served on the petitioners on 7.6.2011, but as the petitioners did not respond to the said notice, he could not adjudicate the matter in compliance of the order of the High Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioners, however, disputes the aforesaid fact. He states that the documents are presently lying with the Circle Officer, Supaul. After obtaining those documents from him, same will be produced before the Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul within three weeks from today. 4. Let the Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul consider the documents produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate order on the merit of the matter ignoring the advice of the Government Pleader which is referred to in the order dated 11.7.2011 bearing Memo No. 444, Annexure-A to the show cause filed today. 5. Before parting with this order, this Court will take notice of the fact that the office of the then 3 A.A.G.-III did not give any information about the filing of contempt petition to the Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul soon after service of the copy of the petition on 27.8.2010, which has caused considerable embarrassment not only to the Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul, but also has wasted the time of the High Court. It goes without saying that the office of the Advocate General is to take prompt action after receipt of the contempt petition for informing the alleged contemnor about the pendency of the matter. 6. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)