^u^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPO^TDENTS WRTTPETmONCC) No. .7738 of2007 Moolchand Sahu S/o Late Chamru Sahu, Aged about 65 years, B7o Tatibandh Basti, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of CHiattisgarh, Through fhe Secretan', Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional OfEcer and Land Acquisition Qfficer, Raipur, Disti-ict Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARJTCLEJ26 OFCONSTITmTONOFLINDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govenmient Advocate for the (Passed on 1 lal day of December, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. The petitioner challenges the notice dated 15.10.2007 (Anneaire P/7) issued by the Sub Divisional OfBcer, Raipur directing fhe petitioner to deposit tlie entire ainount ofthe award within a period ofone week as an objection has been filed by Udaya Grih Ninnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Tatibandh (hereinafter referred to as 'the society'). 2. Shri Sachm Singh Rajput, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits the petitioner is the Bhumi Swami ofland beariag Khasra No. 194/3, area 0.398 hectare P.C. No. 103, R.I.C. No. 1, Tatibandh, Raipur. The property was acquired under the land acquisition proceedmgs. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 disbursed the compensation amount to the tune ofRs. 9.01.464/- to the petitioner. The Societv, afta' disbureement of the amount, filed a vfritten objection for stavine the compensation ofthe amount to Deepu Prasad, Bulakilal, Sonarin Bai and Cliintaram m respect ofthe lands situated m Tatibandh, P.C. No. 103, Raipur, bearing Khasra No. 186, 176/2, 183N, 183/5 area 0.040 hectare, 0.045 hectare, 0.044 acre and 360 hectare, respectively. There was no objection with regard to the land in question bearing Khasra No. 194/3, area 0.398 hectare, i.e. the petitioa schedule land. The respoiident No. 3, without any authority orjurisdiction, has directed the petitioner to deposit the said compensation amount which has already been paid to hini, else, it was stated to lodge a police report. Shii Rajput farther submits that the notice is in the form of order and t3ie same cannot be done wifhout hearins the oetitioner. The .2- '-iaiaae^' objector, i.e. the Society has not raised any objection in respect of the acquired property ofthe petitioner. The respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. Thus, Ihis petition. 3. Sliri Bhatia, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respoadents, per contra, submits that admittedly, the respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to entertain the objection of the Society. Ifthere was any grievance, the Society ought to have made reference to the Civil Court under section 30 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. parties, perosed the pleadings and respondent No. 3 has exercised its iction to take any action oa the aniount after passing ofthe award objector has aot raised any dispute have heard leamed couasel appearing for the documents appeaded tfaereto. It appears that the power over jealously when he has no jurisdiction complaint ofthe SocieU' for disbursement ofthe aiid disbursal ofthe amouat. Even otherwise, the with regard to the disputed propert}7 owned by the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, without recording any finding on the merits of tfae case, the impugned order is set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Sub Divisional OfBcer i.e. the respondent No. 3 becaine functus offlcio after the award was passed aad compensation was paid. If thsre was any grievance as rightly submitted by Seamed coiuisel appearing for tlie respondents/State, recourse may be taken to jurisdictional civil Court under sectioa 30 of the Land A-cquisitioa Act, 6. Iii view of fhe foregoing, this petition is allowed. The iiotice dated 15.10.2007 (Aimexure P/7) is quashed. No order asto costs. ,— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge