Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Arbind Kumar @ Arbind Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors

Arbind Kumar @ Arbind Singh vs The State of Bihar and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 11, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974959

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arbind Kumar @ Arbind Singh

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna civil writ jurisdiction case no. 692 of 2012 ============================================= arbind kumar @ arbind singh son of late bishundeo singh resident of village and post - manoharpur kachhuara, p.s.- gopalpur, dist.-patna. .... .... petitioner. versus 1. the state of bihar through commissioner, patna division.2. commissioner, patna division.3. district magistrate, patna.4. addl. district magistrate, patna.5. circle officer, sampatchak, patna.6. mukhiya, gram panchayat, kanauzi kachhuara, dist.-patna. .... .... respondents. ============================================”11. 01-2012 the present writ petition has been filed by way of public interest litigation commanding and directing the respondents to stop implementation of the scheme by which they have decided to settle a mahadalit basti on the gair majarua aam land. it has also been stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a representation dated 29.10.2011 contained in annexure 4 to that effect is filed by the petitioner to the additional district magistrate, patna, but the same is still pending till today. having heard counsel for the state, it would suffice if a direction is issued to respondent no. 4, the additional district magistrate, patna to dispose of the representation dated 29.10.2011 as contained in annexure 4, if already not disposed of, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, after hearing all the parties concerned. accordingly, such direction is issued. with the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. (t. meena kumari, j.) (gopal prasad, j.) s.a./kundan

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 692 of 2012 ============================================= Arbind Kumar @ Arbind Singh Son of Late Bishundeo Singh Resident of Village and Post - Manoharpur Kachhuara, P.S.- Gopalpur, Dist.-Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner, Patna Division.

2. Commissioner, Patna Division.

3. District Magistrate, Patna.

4. Addl. District Magistrate, Patna.

5. Circle Officer, Sampatchak, Patna.

6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Kanauzi Kachhuara, Dist.-Patna. .... .... Respondents. ============================================”

11. 01-2012 The present writ petition has been filed by way of public interest litigation commanding and directing the respondents to stop implementation of the scheme by which they have decided to settle a Mahadalit Basti on the Gair Majarua Aam Land. It has also been stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a representation dated 29.10.2011 contained in Annexure 4 to that effect is filed by the petitioner to the Additional District Magistrate, Patna, but the same is still pending till today. Having heard counsel for the State, it would suffice if a direction is issued to respondent no. 4, the Additional District Magistrate, Patna to dispose of the representation dated 29.10.2011 as contained in Annexure 4, if already not disposed of, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, after hearing all the parties concerned. Accordingly, such direction is issued. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) S.A./Kundan

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial