IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13573 OF 2010 1. MEENA DEVI W/O RAKESH KUMAR R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- AMHARA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 4. RENU DEVI @ JHUNI DEVI D/O SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA R/O VILL.- DIHRI, P.O.- TARA NAGAR, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA WITH CWJC NO.11554 OF 2010 1. RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE DINSHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL. & P.O.- AMHARA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR - CUM - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 4. RENU DEVI @ JHUNI DEVI D/O SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA R/O VILL.- DIHRI, P.O.- TARA NAGAR, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA ************ 5 12/10/2010 Respondent no. 4 Renu Devi claims to be the wife of Late Deveshwar Prasad Singh @ Manoj Kumar. The lands of Khata No. 875, Plot Nos. 486, 487, 458, 489, 463, 467, Khata No. 879, Plot Nos. 466 & 466, Khata No. 240, Plot Nos. 479, 471, 468, 477, 462, 472, 474, 485, Khata No. 283, Plot No. 470 and Khata No. 589, Plot No. 473 are subject matter of a land acquisition proceeding. The total land to be acquired is 3.8 decimals. Respondent no. 4 has filed Title Suit No. 181 of 2000 claiming that she is the second wife of Late Deveshwar Prasad Singh and that she has 1/3rd share in Schedule-I lands apart from which she is claiming confirmation of possession with respect to Schedule-II 2 lands. It appears from Annexure-4 that Schedule-II lands is not the subject matter of the land acquisition proceeding. As far as Schedule-I lands are concerned, the respondent no. 4 is claiming 1/3rd share of the lands. The petitioners are the purchasers from the sister of Late Deveshwar Prasad Singh. In the circumstances, it would be proper for the Land Acquisition Officer, Patna to refer the matter under Section 30 for apportionment of the shares of the lands in question. Considering the fact that the respondent no. 4 is only claiming 1/3rd share, the Court hearing the application under Section 30 should confine itself with respect to this part of the claim. Both these writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )