IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1667 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 10587 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 9176 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1667 of 2010 ==================================================== Sri Krishna Murari Bhartia SON OF Sri Shankar Prasad Bharatia, resident of Mohalla Koat Bazar, Sitamarhi. …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mrs. Nividita Nirvikar, G.P.-16 with Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, A.C. to G.P.-16 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 26.10.2010. Interlocutory Application No. 9176 of 2010:- This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 32 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. - 2 - Letters Patent Appeal No. 1667 of 2010: - This appeal preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 12th July 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 10587 of 2010. The matter at dispute is the amount of compensation paid to the land owner, the predecessor of the appellant, for a piece of land acquired in the year 1972. It is not in dispute that the land owner did accept the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. After nearly four decades the successor of the land owner filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 10587 of 2010 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The claim of the appellant is ex facie misconceived and is grossly belated. The land owner was not dissatisfied by the award nor did he make an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Collector. The present appellant, the successor, therefore, does not have the locus standi to claim enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)