IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13945 of 2007 Kanak Kumar 'Karamvir' S/o Late Narayan Prasad Singh resident of village Fatehpur Mour Bazirganj P.S. Bazirganj Dist. Gaya Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya 3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Nawada 4. The Executive Engineer, Tilaya Canal Division, Bazirganj, Dist. Gaya 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patna Flood Protection Project, Anisabad, Patna 6. Sri Ramadheen Singh S/o Late Rakshya Singh resident of village + P.O. Bhura P.S. Bazirganj Dist. Gaya Respondents ----------- 3 27.2.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr Anshuman Singh, learned Assistant counsel to learned Additional Advocate General no.3 for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure 9), passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, in Land Acquisition Case no. 11/2002-03, whereby his claim for compensation has been rejected. Respondents no. 1 to 5 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. We do not feel that necessity to issue notice to respondent no.6 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Land bearing Khata no. 197, Plot no. 705, village Bhoora Police Station, Wazeerganj District Gaya, was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act for execution - 2 - of flood protection scheme. The petitioner raises a claim that part of the compensation amount which was denied to him by the authority under the Act leading to CWJC no. 869/2006 ( Kanak Kumar “Karamvir vs State & others ). The same was disposed of by order dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure 6), whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patna , Flood Protection Project, Patna, was directed to consider the petitioner’s claim and was disposed of by a reasoned order. The petitioner’s claim has since been considered and rejected by the impugned order, wherein it is stated that the land in questions entirely belonged to respondent no.6 and the entire amount of compensation has already been paid to him. The petitioner was a mere lessee from respondent no.6 for use of the land as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. In that view of the mater, the impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)