IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2591 of 2008 NARESH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 12 24.8.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and respondent no.6. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to make payment of the amount of compensation to the petitioner with regard to acquisition of the petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No.327, Plot No.2525, measuring an area of 0.25 acres and Khata No.396, Plot No.2537 measuring an area 1.42 totalling 1.68 acres situated in Village – Sheikhpura, P.S. Pandarak, District – Patna. He states that he is the exclusive owner of the land in question and is coming in peaceful possession of the land. He submits that one Deo Narayan Singh son of Baldeo Singh, resident of village-Sheikhpura, filed a case under section 145 Cr.P.C. being Case No.456(M)/1970 in the court of Magistrate Ist Class, Barh, against Lakshmi Narayan Yadav @ Karu Gope and Ramhit Gope. The aforesaid Luxmi Narayan Yadav happens to be father of the petitioner. The court after considering the entire documentary as well as oral evidence and other materials available on the records declared the possession of the petitioner’s father over the said land by order dated 3.1.1972, passed in Case No.455(M) / 1970 / Tr.No.296 of 1971. Thereafter Deo Narayan Singh filed Title Suit 2 No.1 of 1975, being Misc. Case No.1 of 1975 against the petitioner’s Laxmi Narayan Yadav. It is submitted by the petitioner that the aforesaid Title Suit ultimately stood dismissed on 14.6.1976. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 states that in fact permission to sue in informa pauperis was rejected by Sub Judge, Barh, by order dated 14.6.1976 by Sub Judge, Barh in Misc. Case No.1/1975, under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. Thereafter a land acquisition proceeding being Case No.11/07 was initiated in respect of the aforesaid land. Learned counsel submits that the respondent no.6 was not served with a notice. However, he filed an application under the land acquisition proceeding which was rejected. Petitioner submits that no notice was served on him though 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was decided in his favour. He submits that he intervened in the land acquisition proceeding but the same was erroneously rejected. In the counter affidavit the State counsel submits that notice was issued to respondent no.6 and the amount compensation has been paid to him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court observes that if the petitioner files an application under section 30 of the Act, the Collector may pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 3 With the aforesaid observation this writ application stands disposed of. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)