IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12615 of 2010 1. LALITA DEVI W/O LATE GHANSHYAM SHARMA R/O VILL.- AMAHARA, P.O.- AMAHRA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIHTA, PATNA 5. JAY PRAKASH S/O LATE JAWAHAR SHARMA R/O VILL.- AMAHRA, P.O.- AMAHRA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.K.Priyadarshi, A.C. to AAG-III For the respondent No.5 : Mr. N.K.Sharma, Advocate. ----------- 04 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5 and the State. Petitioner questions the sustainability of the notice dated 10.06.2010 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna whereby she has been informed that the claim made by her with regard to the land(s) acquired by the State respondent was not found sustainable and as such she was directed to re-fund the amount of Rs. 2,09,591/- ( Two lakh nine thousand five hundred ninty one only) which was paid to and received by her on 05.07.2010 after furnishing an undertaking that in the event if there is any dispute with regard to the title and possession over the land acquired by the State and claimed by her, the same shall be re- funded. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5. It is stated that prior to the notice impugned the 2 petitioner was put on notice by Annexure-6. In response whereof she appeared before the authority and led the claim whereafter an adjudication was made in which the claim of the petitioner was not found sustainable. The said order has not been impugned in the present proceeding. Paragraph no. 13 and 15 of the aforesaid counter affidavit read as under:- “13. That in reply to averments made in paragraph nos. 17,18 and 19 to the writ petition it is stated that it was not known to the respondent no.5 that petitioner was playing foul play and going to grab the compensation amount against the landed property acquired by the Govt. in form of award for her own property along with others for which she is not entitled and as soon as respondent no.5 came to know that 80% amount of khata no. 1147, Khesra no. 391 area 0.135 acre has been obtained by the petitioner on the basis of forged documents and misleading the authority in connivance with the then official, respondent no.5 filed objection along with valid documents consequently mischief of the petitioner detected and notice dated 10/06/2010 issued for ends of justice. 15. That statements made in paragraph 20 to the writ petition is false and here by denied by the answering respondent no.5 as the petitioner suppressing the facts and to mislead this Hon’ble Court as petitioner received notice dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-6) to the writ petition appeared in L.A. case no. 15/2008-09 before District Land Acquisition Officer Patna on 25.03.2010 on 08.04.2010 received copy of objection and on 17.04.2010 filed show cause along with list of documents which have been annexed with writ petition except copy of agreement dated 19.01.1978 and her show cause and after hearing both the sides order has been passed and notice dated 10.06.2010 for recover of 80% amount of land bearing khata no 1147, khesra no. 391, area 0.135 acre which has been received by the petitioner. Copy of order sheet shall be produced by the R-5 at the time of hearing. On this score alone this writ petition is not maintainable and may be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 authority under the Land Acquisition Act has no jurisdiction to decide title inter se. If that be so, the petitioner would be well advised to approach the authority for reference of the matter to a competent Civil Court in terms of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since there is already an adjudication of title and interest with respect to the land between the petitioner and private respondent which has not been brought on record and impugned in the present proceeding, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)