IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3963 of 2010 1. Arun Kumar Choudhary S/O Sri Satya Narain Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Kariho, P.O.- Karhio,K P.S. Supaul, Distt.- Supaul Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Supaul, Distt.- Supaul 3. The Bihar Electricity Board through its Personnel Director Patna 4. The Assistant Engineer Bihar State Electricity Board, Supaul, Distt.- Supaul 5. The Executive Engineer Bihar State Electricity Board, Supaul, Distt.- Supaul 6. The Superintendent of Police Supaul, Distt.- Supaul 7. The Officer Incharge, P.S. Supaul, Distt.- Supaul ----------- 9 15.11.2011 Heard Mr. Uma Shanker Singh No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel for the Electricity Board and Mr. Sushil Kumar, A.C. to G.A.1 for the State. The petitioner claims to be an Attorney holder of the land owners namely Narsing Prasad Tiwari and Taran Prasad Tiwari, who owned certain land situated in the Municipal Ward No.10(new), District Supual and has filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refrain from interfering over the land in question. During the course of proceedings a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Electricity Board bringing on record several documents supporting the claim of the Board that the lands in question had been acquired by the respondent Board for setting up of Sub- Station and offices pursuant to acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1976-77. While admitting that the original land owner is Narsing Prasad Tiwari and Taran Prasad Tiwari, it is contended with supportive documents appended in the counter affidavit that compensation had been paid to them. There are other documents demonstrating taking over of the possession over the 2 land in question by the respondent Board. Mr. Uma Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitoner relying upon certain documents appended in the supplementary counter affidavit and placed at Annexure-F series, submits that the land owners perhaps did not get the compensation amount and thus the petitioner may be allowed to seek remedy before the appropriate forum for claiming the compensation. The request made by the learned counsel is only taken to be rejected for the reason that the acquisition having taken place more than 30 years back and no such objection being raised by, the original land owners the petitioner, a Power of Attorney holder of the descendents of the original land owner, cannot seek any liberty nor can be permitted to raise a buried claim. The writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)