PATNA, India, Aug. 19 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 21:

Heard the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner seeks following relief(s):-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s, order/s in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent/s to pay compensation for the place of land owned and possessed by the petitioner, and patiently acquired by the respondent no. 3, 4, 5 & 6

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s order/s in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent/s to heard and disposed of the representation dated 22-3-25 filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2.

(iii)Any other reliefs for which the petitioner may found entitled by this Hon'ble Court?

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land situated at mauza-Kharik, district Bhagalpur in villagePurbi Gharari, (Gotkharik) Police Station-Kharik, bearing Thana no. 47/1, Khata no. 225, Khesra no. 122, 123, 126, 127 stands in the name of Late Anandi Singh, grand father of the petitioner. He further submits that after the death of petitioner's father, petitioner came in the absolute ownership of the land in question. He further submits that the land in question has been partially acquired by the respondent nos. 3 and 5 for laying pipeline beneath the said land on the basis of oral agreement between the said Anandi Singh and the officials of respondent no. 3, 4, 5 and 6. He further submits that the land of the petitioner has become useless for agricultural purpose. He further submits that petitioner served a legal notice on the respondent no. 4 on 20.12.2024, as contained in Annexure P/3, with regard to the compensation of land as pipeline has been laid beneath the said land in question but no action has been taken up till now. He further submits that petitioner has represented before the Respondent No. 2 - The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by filing representation dated 22.03.2025, as contained in Annexure P/4, but no action has been taken up-till-now.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the HPCL has submitted that if petitioner files fresh representation before the competent authority, the grievance of the petitioner may be looked into. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the IOCL does not controvert the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, for seeking writ of mandamus, there must be a demand before the competent authority. At the same time, duty is cast on the concerned public authority. The first ingredient of demand before the competent authority is not forthcoming.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of as not maintainable.

6. However, disposal of the writ petition would not be hurdle for the petitioner to approach the competent authority / appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance by filing fresh representation raising all the grievances as has been raised in the present writ petition before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioner submit his representation within the stipulated period, the competent authority / appropriate forum is directed to pass appropriate order within the reasonable time as per provision of law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.