IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10587 of 2010 SRI KRISHNA MURARI BHARTIA, SON OF SRI SHANKER PRASAD BHARATIA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KOAT BAZAR, SITAMARHI. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI. ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 12.7.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated with respect to a plot of land for I.T.I. Project at Sitamarhi. In the said Land Acquisition Proceeding the award amount was fixed at Rs. 1500/-. A reference was filed, the Court did not interfere with the amount awarded to the petitioner. The High Court in First Appeal No. 481 of 1981 enhanced the amount to Rs. 3,000/-. A year later, a second land acquisition proceeding for the same plot of land was initiated and the Collector awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation. The reference Court awarded Rs. 8,000/-. The State filed a first appeal against the order of the District Court which was dismissed for default. While the First Appeal was pending, the petitioner filed an application on 31.1.1995 for enhancing Rs. 3,000/- awarded in the earlier land acquisition proceeding which was initiated in 1972. The said application has been rejected by the Director, Land Acquisition vide order dated 5.1.2010 on the ground that the petitioner has already been withdrawn the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same plot of land he has been given higher compensation of Rs. 2 8,000/- whereas the compensation amount given in the year 1972 proceeding is only Rs. 3,000/- and as such prays that he should be given Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for plot no. 1035(Old) equivalent 2458 (New). This Court cannot pass the positive order in the facts of this case as this matter has been finally be decided by the High Court in the First Appeal. The petitioner did not take any steps to get the order of first appeal reviewed. Besides which the petitioner must have led evidence before the reference Court with respect to the value of the land, and as such the prayer of the petitioner is misplaced, in view of the facts that the proceeding stood concluded. Learned counsel submits that he may be given liberty to pursue his legal remedies. It goes without saying that if any legal remedies are available to petitioner , he may pursue the same. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)