HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON (C-) No. 7739 of2007 PETITIONER : Deepu Prasad S/o Late Goverdhan Prasad Sahu, Aged about 45 years, R/'o Tatibandh Basti, Tatibaadh, Raipur (C.G.) \rERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Througii the Secretai-y, Departnieiit of Revenue, Maatralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Tlie Cpllector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition OfFicer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226 QF CQNSTmTIONOF.INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate forthe (Passed on 11th 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 (Armexure P/9) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount ofthe award within a period of one week as an obiection has been fiied bv Udava Grih Ntnnan Salikari Samiti Maryadit, Tatibandh Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). ri>. Sliri Sachin Sinah Rajput, leamed counsel appeariiig for the petitioner submits flie , petitioner is the Bhumi Swami oflandbearingKhasraNo. 186/4.area0.809hectare P.C. No. 103, R.I.C. No. 1, Tatibaadh, Raipur. The properh' was acquired under the laad acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, tlie respondent No. 3 disbursed fhe compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 18;32,366/- to the petitioaer. Tne Society, after disbursement of fhe amount, filed a written objection for staying tfae compeasation ofthe amount to Deepu Prasad, Bulakilal, Sonarin Bai and Chintaram in respect ofthe lands situated in Tatibandh, P.C. No. 103, Raipur, bearing Khasra No. 186, 176/2, 183/4, 183/5 area 0.040 hectare, 0.045 hectare, Q.044 acre aad 360 hectare, respectively. There was no objectioa with regard to fhe land in question bearing Khasra No. 186/4, area 0.809 hectare, i.e. the petition schedule land. The respoadent No. 3, without any authority orjurisdiction, has directed the petitioner to deposit the said compensation amoimt wliich has already been paid to hini, else, it was stated to lodge a police report. Shri Rajput farther submits that the notice is in the fonn of order and tiie same canaot be done without heariag tlie petitioner. The -z- objector, i.e. the Society has not raised any objection in respeet of tlie acquired property.oftfae petitioner. The respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to issue such a notiee. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Bhatia, leamed counsel appearing for the Stat&'respondents submits that the respoadents may kindly be pennitted to adopt the retuni filed in VV.P.(C) No. 7738/2007 aiid the same may be treated as retum to this petition also. He further submits that admittedly, the respondent No. 3 has no jurisdicfion to entertam the objection ofthe Society. Iftliere was any grievance, the Society ought to have made ; reference to the Civil Court under section 30 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. I have heard leamed counse! appearing for the parties, perused the .plsadings and documents appended thereto. It appears thatthe respondent No. 3 has exercised its power over jealously when he has no jurisdiction to take any actioH on the complaint ofthe Society for disbursement ofthe amount after passing ofthe award and disbursal ofthe amount. Even otherw'ise, the objector has not raised aiiy dispute witli regard to the disputed property owned by the petitioner. 5. Be tliat as it may, without recording aay finding on the ments ofthe cass, the impugned order is set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Tlie Sub Divisional Ofiicer i.e. the respondent No. 3 became functits officw after the award was passed aad compensatioa was paid. If there was any grievaiiee as rightly submitted by leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State, recourse may be taken to jurisdictional civil Court under section 30 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view ofthe foregoins, this petition is allowed. The notice dated 15.10.2007 (.'tenexure P/9) is quashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge