Patna High Court
Mamta Sinha @ Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.351 of 2025
======================================================
1. Mamta Sinha @ Mamta Kumari daughter of Late Kalawati Devi and Late
Nageshwar Prasad Singh, wife of Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, R/o Mohalla-
Ramnagri More, Srinath Nagar Colony, P.S.-Rajeev Nagar, District-Patna.
2. Anuj Kumar Singh, S/o Late Nagendra Prasd Singh, R/o Mohalla-Ramnagri
More, Srinath Nagar Colony, P.S.-Rajeev Nagar, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Collector/Magistrate, Patna.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
6. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Sipara, Patna.
7. The Regional Manager, IOCL, Sipara, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for a
direction to the respondents to remove the encroachment from
the raiyati land of the petitioners and immediately remove the
pipe line that has been laid on the land of the petitioners without
following proper legal procedures, such as paying rent,
initiating land acquisition proceedings or paying compensation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.351 of 2025 dt.21-01-2025
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) has been using the said
land since 1965. Therefore, the petitioners are demanding
compensation at the current market rate and rent from
01.04.1965
until the present date, along with penal interest @
18% per annum. Learned counsel further submits that Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL) should be added as a party
respondent in the present proceedings, and notices should be
issued to IOCL accordingly.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioners had earlier approached this Hon'ble
Court by filing CWJC No. 7764 of 2023. The said writ petition
was disposed of by an order dated 23.11.2023, granting liberty
to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition with detailed facts.
Learned counsel further submits that, according to the
petitioners' claim, the cause of action arose in 1965.
5. It transpires to this Court that, as per Annexure-P/2,
the petitioner first filed an application in 1967, and
subsequently, from 1967 to 1971, he filed several applications.
However, no action was taken on these applications. It further
transpires that, according to the pleadings, the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited has been in possession of the land since
Patna High Court CWJC No.351 of 2025 dt.21-01-2025
1965 and the petitioners, as mentioned in the Writ Petition, were
aged 58 and 59 years, respectively, at the time of filing the
present Writ Petition. This implies that the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited has been in possession of the land even
before the petitioners' birth. After a lapse of about 60 years, the
petitioners are now claiming compensation, in the opinion of
this Court, such a claim, after such an inordinate delay, is not
appropriate. Therefore, on the grounds of delay, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25/01/2025
Transmission Date NA
