IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14091 of 2004 ABDUL SATTAR, Son of Late Sheikh Alarakhu, resident of Village-Abdullah Nagar Taregana, P.S.-Masaurhi, District- Patna. ................Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Patna District-Patna. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Masaurhi, District-Patna. 4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District-Patna. 5. Abdul Gaffar Son of Late Seikh Alarakhu 6. Anwar Hussain Son of Late Mohammad Ishaque. All are resident of Abdullah Nagar, Taregana, P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna. 7. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ............................Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. J.N. Tiwary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, GP-15 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, AC to GP-15 18/ 10.02.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction upon respondent nos. 1 to 3 to pay compensation for the lands belonging to the petitioner, which was allegedly taken into possession forcibly by the respondent authorities and was amalgamated in the premises of the Office and court of the respondent S.D.M., Masaurhi and a public road 2 including approach road has been constructed over the same. 3. This matter was heard on different dates by different Bench of this Court. In the light of the directions issued by this Court on different dates, respondent authorities produced notifications dated 26.08.2010 and 10.12.2010, both issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, whereby 0.135 acres of lands situate at Village Taregana in the district of Patna pertaining to plot no. 1518 belonging to the petitioner has been acquired under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A compensation amount was fixed for such acquisition of land in question. 4. On the previous occasion, when the matter was taken up by this Court on 30.11.2010, then a grievance was raised on behalf of the petitioner that calculation chart has not been produced by the respondent authorities indicating therein how much amount has been fixed as price of land and how much amount has been paid towards solatium as also compensation. In compliance of the order passed by this Court on the previous occasion, a supplementary 3 counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 annexing therein the calculation chart (Annexure B) wherein entire details have been given. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that in the light of directions issued by this Court on previous occasion, the petitioner was given a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- on 14.07.2010 through his counsel. Subsequently, a cheque of Rs.24,48,194.56 was also handed over to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on 02.11.2010, which was subsequently received by the petitioner. After deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs.26,48,194.56, as per calculation by the respondents, Rs.4,96,151.56 only was payable to the petitioner. In the aforesaid balance amount, an interest amount has also been added by the respondent authorities, which is apparent from the calculation chart (Annexure B) and total balance amount comes to Rs.5,00,517.69. 6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned Government Pleader no. 15, appearing on behalf of respondents, has produced a cheque of the entire balance amount of Rs.5,00,517.69, a photo copy of the cheque dated 05.02.2011 has been brought on record as Annexure A. The 4 original copy of the cheque dated 05.02.2011 is being handed over by learned Government Pleader to Mr. Upendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, from the facts stated above, it is apparent that the entire amount for acquiring the lands of the petitioner has been paid by the respondents to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in fact entitled for some more compensation. If so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take any legal recourse, permissible under law, for redressal of his grievances. This court is satisfied that the order/direction issued by this Court from time to time has been fully complied with and no further action is required to be taken in the present proceeding. Consequently, the present proceeding is required to be terminated. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations made above, the present petition stands finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )