PATNA, India, Aug. 21 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 22:

Heard Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules.

3. In the present appeal, the appellant/original petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 9163 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the appellant is the owner of the land which has been acquired by the respondent-Railways. The appellant has claimed that award in respect of 19 dhurs out of 2 kathas of land was made in favour of his mother. He has also alleged that for remaining 1 katha and 1 dhur, award was prepared in the name of one Zubaida Bibi wife of Habib Mian, though she has no right, title, interest or possession over the said land. It is further submitted that L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013 is pending in the court of Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra with regard to the aforesaid dispute.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant claims to be the son of Ram Jyoti Devi who died in the year 2005. Appellant has prayed that as per the policy of the Railways, which was framed in the year 2007, the son of the appellant is entitled to get employment in the Railways.

6. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner mainly on two grounds; firstly that the learned Single Judge considered that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2002 whereas the petitioner filed the petition in the year 2015. Therefore, there was a delay of 13 years in filing the petition and, therefore, learned Single Judge did not consider the case of the petitioner on merits, so far as parcel of the land is concerned. Secondly, so far as remaining parcel of land is concerned, i.e., 1 katha 1 dhur land, which has been acquired by the respondentRailways, it has been observed by learned Single Judge that the dispute with regard to the grant of compensation for the said land is pending before court of Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013. It is also contended that learned Single Judge observed that the said land is less than 0.2 acres and as the dispute is pending before the concerned court, petitioner would not be entitled to any compensation. Thus, the learned Single Judge has not entertained the petition on that count also. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the learned Single Judge committed an error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNTcjMjAyMyMxI04=-fnQv7EuEvnY=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.