IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3465 of 2003 1.BALIKA VIDYAPEETH,LAKHISARAI, District Lakhisarai, through its Secretary Dr.Kumar Sharad Chandra 2.Dr.Kumar Sharad Chandra, son of Late Braj Nandan Ji, Secretary Balika Vidyapeeth, Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai------petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger 3.The Collector, Lakhisarai 4.The Additional Collector, Lakhisarai 5.The District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger 6.The District Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai 7.The Circle Officer, Lakhisarai 8.The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 9.The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 10.The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 11.The General Manager, Transmission, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 12.The Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Biharsharif 13.The Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Jamalpur, District Munger 14.The Assistant Engineer, Transmission, Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai 15.The Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-----------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioners: Mr.Vishwanath Pd.Singh,Sr.Advocate For the State :Mr. Piyush Lall,Advocate A.C. to AAG III For the Electricity Board:Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh,Advocate ---- 14. 12.5.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay the full compensation to the petitioners after preparing the final award in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/98-99 pending in the court of District Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai. 2 The case of the petitioners is that 0.93 acres of land of plot No.203, 0.68 acres of land of plot No. 206, 4.09 acres of land of plot No.206 and 0.43 acres of land of plot No.23 were given by the petitioners to the Electricity Board for the construction of 132/33 KVA grid station at Lakhisarai for which the authorities of the Board had approached them on the condition that the amount of compensation to be fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer would be paid. The matter remained pending for a long time despite several representations and reminders filed by the petitioners before various authorities of the Electricity Board and the State and ultimately the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.12427 of 1996. During the pendency of the said writ application the Land Acquisition Case No. 1/98-99 was started by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai for acquisition of the land of the petitioner and for giving him the compensation for the same. In the earlier writ application a supplementary show cause had been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai and In-charge, Land Acquisition Officer, Munger in which it was stated that a sum of Rs. 1,31,315.07/- had been deposited by the Bihar State Electricity Board, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,21,315.07/- had been paid to the petitioner after retention of Rs.10,000/- as establishment cost and it was stated that action was being taken for acquisition of the land. On the basis of the said stand the writ application was disposed of observing that no further order was required to be passed and after completion of the acquisition proceeding the petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for payment of rest of the amount. 3 In the land acquisition proceeding the Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1’s claim to have acquired the land from the ex-landlord is in doubt as it was unable to produce the documents relating to Jamabandi being recorded in its name. The stand of the officials of the State was that the land was recorded in cadastral survey as Gairmazarua Malik and any settlement/transfer of the said land is within the power of the State Government alone. Thus, the deed of gift dated 26.11.1951 could not lead to any title being acquired by the petitioner. The further stand was that the Circle Officer was not empowered to open Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner in Case No.3/75-76 as much before the said date the power had been vested in the Sub Divisional Officer. Earlier when this case had come up before this Court on 23.9.2003 this Court had directed the Commissioner of Munger Division to reconsider the matter and decide the question of the petitioner’s case as to its entitlement to receive compensation (part of which has already been paid) along with solatium and up-to-date interest, if found payable for which the petitioner was directed to appear before him and place his case. After hearing the parties the Commissioner passed a detailed order on 25.6.2004 in which after considering all aspects of the matter he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have any claim or title over the land in question and the Jamabandi opened in his name was also suspicious and he directed the Collector to take steps for cancelling the same. It was held that since there was no valid basis for the claim of title of the petitioner over the land in question, hence no right to compensation arises in their favour. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner without specifically assailing the order dated 25.6.2004 of the Commissioner has sought to argue that in view of the fact that at the request of the Electricity Board the petitioners had given the land to it with the condition that the compensation shall be paid to them, an order to that effect should be passed in their favour. Various submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioners which are countered by learned counsel for the State. However, in view of the materials on the record in the order of the Commissioner, this Court is of the view that any direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioners can only be given if there an undisputed right and title of the petitioners with respect to the land in question. Since serious doubts have been raised with respect to the same and their right to compensation was negatived by the order dated 25.6.2004 of the Commissioner, this Court is of the view that issues of title arise which can only be decided in a properly constituted title suit before the competent civil court. Unless the said issues are settled no direction can be issued in its favour. The aforesaid view is also supported by the following decisions of the Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the State. In the case of Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and another : AIR 1957 SC 529, in paragraph-5 it has been held as follows :- “5. We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute 5 requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.” To the same effect are the observations in the case of D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi Municipal Corpn, and others : AIR 1976 SC 386, paragraph-18 of which is quoted below : “18. In our opinion, in a case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course of the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. On this short ground while setting aside the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the writ petition and the appeal with costs. The appellants may if so advised, seek their remedy by a regular suit.” The aforesaid view was reiterated in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh and others :AIR Supp.(1) SCC 306, in paragraph-7 of the judgment in the following words : “7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the writ petition was misconceived insofar as it asked for, in effect, a declaration of writ petitioner’s title to the said plot. It is evident from the facts stated hereinabove that the title of the writ petitioner is very much in dispute. Disputed question relating to title cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition.” The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. 6 It will, however, be open to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil court for the vindication of their rights. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/