IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2226 of 2002 Tabrez Alam, son of Late Md. Lukman, resident of Village- Nokha, Police Station- Nokha, District- Rohtas --------- Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas Sasaram. 3. Shah Jahan Begum, daughter of late Md. Lukman, wife of Md. Ali, resident of Village- Polpol, Via- Daltenganj, P.S. Daltenganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand -- ---- Respondents. -------- 7. 21.11.2008 Heard Mr. Sanjay Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.3, and Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh for respondent no.3( Shah Jahan Begum). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2001 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas(Sasaram), in Case No. 12(B) of 2000- 2001(Tarbej Alam), whereby he has apportioned the claim of compensation between the petitioner and respondent no.3 who are full brother and sister. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the lands belonging to late Md. Lukman were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner is his son, and respondent no.3 is his daughter. The dispute arose between them for their claims to receive compensation and the same has been decided by the impugned order, whereby he has apportioned 2/3 of the compensation money to the petitioner, and 2 1/3 to respondent no.3. The petitioner’s claim for the whole of the compensation, based on an oral hibba from his father, has been rejected. It appears to me that the learned Land Acquisition Officer considered this issue and has observed that the case of oral hibba set up by the petitioner is a false story and has, therefore, passed the impugned order. I find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case of dispute in this connection, reference should be made to the civil court in terms of section 18 and/or 30 of the Act. It appears to me that the learned Land Acquisition Officer did not find any difficulty in deciding, particularly in a situation where the relationship between the parties is admitted, there was no need for him to make reference under the said provision(s) of law. I do not consider it to be an appropriate exercise of discretion to permit the petitioner to take steps for a reference because he has already engaged this Court for so many years, has obtained the present order on merits, and it would be an abuse of the process of the court to give him the liberty. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to disburse 1/3 of the amount of the total of the compensation amount in favour of respondent no.3 forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to the balance. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)