IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5111 of 2002 RAJ KUMAR YADAV son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad/Yadav, resident of village- Hathwan, P.S.- Alauli, District- khagaria. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Block Development Officer, Alauili, District- Khagaria 3. Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Khagaria 4. Sub-divisional Officer, Tube-well subdivision, Khagaria ----------- 13 03.02.2009 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein to the effect that the possession of the land of the petitioner was taken by the respondents for installation of tube-well in respect of a piece of land measuring 10 decimals in Mouza Hathwan appertaining to Revisional Survey no. 108, Touji no. 1354, Khata no. 454, Khesra no. 2123. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents without paying any compensation for acquiring the land has installed the tube-well and despite representing no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that on perusal of the letter written by the Executive Engineer as contained in Annexure-3, it would appear that the details of the land were required to be sent to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Khagaria in connection with payment of compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the State has 2 filed a counter affidavit and has denied the fact of acquisition. It has been stated that the petitioner had voluntarily handed over the possession of land measuring 1728 sq.ft. for installation of tube-well and not 10 decimals as claimed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the land in question, over which the tube-well has been installed, was given by the petitioner voluntarily, and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation. It is further submitted that on perusal of the letter contained in memo dated 25.02.2002 (Annexure-4), it would appear that the land in question was given to the Department voluntarily, and as such, there was no occasion to make payment of compensation. From the above it appears that the fact regarding acquisition of land or the same was given voluntarily by the father of the petitioner has been seriously disputed. Therefore, it becomes necessary that the very fact that whether the land was acquired by the respondents or the land in question was handed over to the department by the father of the petitioner voluntarily be adjudicated on the basis of materials. The above seriously disputed questions of fact can not be appropriately decided in a writ proceeding. In the circumstances, it will be open for the 3 petitioner to make a comprehensive representation for redressal of his grievances before the respondent no.3, the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Khagaria. In case such representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order, the respondent no.3 shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. The order passed on such representation shall be communicated to the petitioner through registered post. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)