IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7892 of 2008 RAJESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate -with- M/S. Manojeshwar Prasad Sinha & Ratan Kuma Sinha, Advocates. For the State: Mrs. Binita Singh, J.C. to A.A.G-3. For Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi and Manish Kumar No.2, Advocates. ------- 6. 12.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for Private Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 2. Petitioner filed this writ application for a direction to the State-respondents to make a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in connection with Land Acquisition Case Nos. 9,17 of 2001-02 with further direction to the State-respondents to deposit the award money in the court of Special Land Acquisition Judge, Barh who should adjudicate the claim of the parties and the compensation amount be disbursed between the parties in the light of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Barh. In this connection it is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition in the aforesaid two land acquisition cases and was served with the notice dated 11.09.2002, as contained in Annexure-1 series to appear and satisfy the Land Acquisition Authorities on - 2 - 25.09.2002 that he was the owner of 6.28 + 3.58 acres of land detailed in the notice and to collect compensation in lieu thereof. In response to the aforesaid notice petitioner appeared before the authorities and submitted that he be paid the compensation amount, which request of the petitioner was refuted by the private respondents who submitted that the lands in-question belonged to one Karmchand Singh who died leaving behind three sons, Mahabir Singh, Aidal Singh and Raghunandan Singh. Raghunandan Singh died unmarried and issueless during the life time of his afore named two brothers. After the death of Raghunandan Singh sometimes in 1910-11 Mahabir Singh and Aidal Singh effected partition of the properties. Mahabir Singh thereafter died in the year 1924 leaving behind his widow Most. Dakho Kuer and daughter Sharda Devi. The other brother Aidal Singh died in the year 1934 leaving behind his widow Chhoharo Kuer. After the death of Aidal Singh the husband of Chhoharo Kuer there was a registered family arrangement between the widows of the two brothers which is dated 16.04.1935 in which the entire property of Karmchand Singh was divided half and half between the two widows with reference to the oral partition of 1910-11 effected between Mahabir Singh and Aidal Singh. Having entered into aforesaid registered family arrangement Most. Dakho Kuer executed a - 3 - registered Ladabi deed on 11.02.1941 whereunder she relinquished her interest in the properties which came to her share in the family arrangement dated 16.04.1935 in favour of her sister-in-law Chhoharo Kuer. Said Ladabi deed was again cancelled by another registered deed of cancellation dated 27.08.1941 whereafter it is said that the lands in-question remained in exclusive possession of Dakho Kuer and her daughter Sharda Devi until Dakho Kuer left for her heavenly abode in the year 1944 whereafter Sharda Devi, the daughter of Dakho Kuer continued in possession of the lands in-question until the same was notified for acquisition and on these pleadings it was submitted by the private respondents, the sons of Sharda Devi, before the Land Acquisition Authorities that the compensation should be paid to them and not to the petitioner as according to the private respondents Chhoharo Kuer, through whom the petitioner is claiming title over the lands in-question had already sold her half share in the property of Karmchand Singh by various sale deeds executed from time to time. It was also submitted by the private respondents before the Land Acquisition Authorities that the lands in-question have been mutated in the name of the private respondents by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms under orders dated 28.06.2004 which has also been affirmed in appeal by the Collector - 4 - under orders dated 07.01.2008, as such, the compensation of the lands in-question be allowed to them and not to the petitioner. 3. Aforesaid contention of the private respondents was refuted by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Authorities as they submitted that Karmchand Singh died leaving behind his three sons, Mahabir Singh, Aidal Singh and Raghunandan Singh. Admittedly, Raghunandan Singh and Mahabir Singh predeceased Aidal Singh and after the death of Raghunandan Singh and Mahabir Singh, their interest in the joint family property of Karmchand Singh vested in Aidal singh as both had died before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Succession Act”) and that being the position Dakho Kuer, the wife of Mahabir Singh will have no interest in the joint family property, as Dakho Kuer remained a maintenance holder until her death in the year 1944. He further submitted that Dakho Kuer having executed the registered deed of Ladabi on 11.02.1941 in favour of Chhooharo Kuer relinquishing her interest in the properties could not have cancelled the same by executing another registered deed of cancellation dated 27.08.1941 as registered Ladabi deed could only be cancelled by approaching the competent Civil Court and not by executing registered deed of cancellation. In the - 5 - light of the aforesaid submissions counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that Chhoharo Kuer, wife of Aidal Singh, after the death of her husband in the year 1934 became maintenance holder and perfected her rights under Section 14 of the Succession Act as on the date of enactment she possessed the properties as a maintenance holder. Having perfected her rights under Section 14 of the Succession Act, Chhoharo Kuer executed a gift deed dated 30.05.1967 in favour of the petitioner, whereunder she gave all her properties including the lands in-question to the petitioner and on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed petitioner claimed compensation for the acquired lands. 4. The Land Acquisition Authorities considered the aforesaid rival claim of the parties and passed orders dated 07/10.04.2008 relying on the orders dated 28.06.2004 of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms fixing the rent of the lands in-question in favour of the Private Respondents as also the appellate order dated 17.01.2008 affirming the rent fixation order dated 28.06.2004 and allowed the claim of the private respondents for receipt of the compensation amount and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to make reference under Section 30 of the Act and on the basis of the two orders 80 per cent compensation amount was paid to the private respondents. Aforesaid order has been annexed with the - 6 - counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having received the copy of the counter affidavit filed supplementary affidavit praying inter alia to quash the entire proceedings as contained in Annexures- A and B of the counter/supplementary affidavit of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by which they had paid 80 per cent award money to the private respondents with further prayer to direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to realize the award money from private respondent nos. 5 to 8 and deposit the same in the court of Special Land Acquisition Judge, Barh, who should adjudicate the rival claim of the parties and payment be made in the light of the orders of the Court. 6. Aforesaid submission of the petitioner has been questioned by the learned counsel for the private respondents with reference to Section 30 of the Act which provision according to the learned counsel for the petitioner empowers the Collector to adjudicate the dispute for apportionment of the award money. In this connection, it is submitted that it is the discretion of the Collector to either decide the dispute himself or to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Civil Court. In any case suit by a claimant who has not succeeded before the Collector is not barred. In this connection learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - 7 - in the case of Dr. G.H.Grant Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237, in paragraph 19 whereof the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Act and the other relevant provisions and has held : “The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation : that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 or in a separate suit.” 7. It is thus, evident that the Collector had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the title to compensation but in a case in which complicated questions of title, may be on facts, are raised, in my opinion, he should restrain himself from adjudicating over the entitlement of compensation. Now, I have to consider whether the case in hand is a case in which complicated questions of law and facts have been raised by the parties. For such consideration the facts pleaded by both the parties, as is evident from the writ petition, the counter affidavit and noted in paragraph 2 and 3 above itself indicate that the effect of death of the various members of the family, namely, Mahabir Singh, Aidal Singh and Dakho Kuer has to be considered and examined with reference to the three registered documents: deed of family arrangement dated 16.04.1935, deed of relinquishment dated 11.2.1941 and deed of - 8 - cancellation dated 27.08.1941, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner after the death of Mahabir Singh in the year 1924 his interest/properties vested in Aidal Singh and Dakho Kuer remained maintenance holder until her death in the year 1944. It was further pointed out that having executed the deed of relinquishment dated 11.2.1941 Dakho Kuer could not have cancelled the same by executing another registered deed of cancellation dated 27.08.1941. Aforesaid question of fact and law does not appear to have been considered by the Collector while deciding the entitlement of the Private Respondents for grant of compensation. 8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case in which the Collector should have referred the dispute for adjudication by the competent court of civil jurisdiction i.e. Special Land Acquisition Judge, Barh. He, having taken the responsibility of deciding complicated questions of fact and law that too on the basis of the mutation orders passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 28.06.2004 and the appellate order dated 17.01.2008 affirming the same passed by the Collector of the District does not inspire confidence in this Court. The two orders passed by the Collector dated 07.04.2008 and 10.04.2008 granting compensation to Private Respondents are quashed with - 9 - direction to the Collector, Patna to make reference under Section 30 of the Act in connection with Land Acquisition Case Nos. 9,17 of 2001-02 to the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Barh and the private respondents are directed to deposit the amount which they have collected pursuant to the aforesaid two orders in the court of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Barh within 60 days from today whereafter the amount be invested in a term deposit with any Nationalized Bank and after adjudication about the ownership of the lands the deposit be disbursed in favour of the successful party. In the event private respondents fail to deposit the amount within 60 days from today the Collector, Patna shall recover the amount as arrears of land revenue by resorting to proceedings under the P.D.R. Act. 9. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. A.F.R./P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)