Patna High Court
Bindu KumariversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
Bindu Kumari filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus directing various state officials to decide an objection petition and a Jamabandi Raddikaran case concerning her land, which she claimed was wrongly declared Gair Thikedar and for which she sought compensation. The petition also requested that the National Highways Authority of India be impleaded. The petitioner did not appear before the court, and despite adjournments and an order to implead NHAI, no compliance was shown. The court observed that the petitioner had lost interest in the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non‑prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to decide the objection petition and Jamabandi case should be entertained despite the petitioner's non‑appearance.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- writ of mandamus
- non‑prosecution
- compensation
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1962 of 2018
======================================================
Bindu Kumari Wife of Jalaz Kumar, Resident of Village- Bhadari, P.S.- Silao,
District- Nalanda at Biharsharif. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
4. The Additional Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda-cum-competent authority,
N.H.- 82.
6. The Circle Officer, Silao, District Nalanda at Biharsharif.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan -Sc25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 12-01-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though the
State is present.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
responsible No. respondents for a direction
to respondent no. 5 to decide the objection
petition dated 12.6.2014 pertaining to
Mauza Mohanpur, Thana 424, Khata
No.164, Khesra no.2464 Jamabandi No. 749
area 3 1/8 decimals under which Objection
Case No. 2/2014-15 was registered in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1962 of 2018(4) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
light of the notification issued by Ministry of
Roadways and National Highways published
in the Gazette of India and circulated in
Newspaper Hindustan dated 3.6.2014
whereby objection was invited by the
affected person whose land are to be
acquired contained in Annexure-1 and also
for a direction to the respondent no.4 to
decide Jamabandi Raddikaran Case No.
23/2016 on priority basis because the land
of the petitioner bearing Mauza-Mohanpur,
Thana No.424, Khata No. 164,Khesra
No.2464, Area-3 1/8 decimal lands
Gairmazarua Malik and through
Hukumnama Land was given to Md.Abda
Khatoon wife of Sheikh Aminuddin and it
was mutated in her name after this the
petitioner purchased the aforesaid land
through Registered Sale deed dated 3.7.2001
and rent receipt is being issued after taking
rent from the petitioner, but through
Newspaper notification dated 10.6.2013
Patna High Court CWJC No.1962 of 2018(4) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
published in Hindustan the land of the
petitioner vide Survey No.2464 has been
declared Gair Thikedar which is wrong and
illegal and after cancellation of the wrong
notification of the land of the petitioner a
direction may be given to give the
appropriate compensation after acquiring
the land of the petitioner as per law.
3. A perusal of the order-sheet would show that before
two coordinate benches on 08.02.2023 and 10.04.2023, prayer
for adjournments were made. Further, the order dated
10.04.2023 by which the petitioner was allowed to implead the
National Highways Authority of India as party respondent, has
not even been complied with.
4. It seems that since the petitioner has lost interest in
the case, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…