IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13030 of 2005 RAM DAYAL PANDEY son of late Deonandan Pandey, resident of village and P. O. Paramjiwar, P. S. Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Muzaffapur, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur 4. Brij Kishore Yadav son of late Jewar Yadav, resident of village and P.O. Paramjiwar, P. S. Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur. … Respondents. ----------- 10. 15.10.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(A) Order dated 12.8.2005 passed by respondent No.3 in Land Acquisition Case No. 25 of 2001- 02, as contained in Annexure-1, may kindly be quashed. (B) Respondents No.1 to 3 may be commanded to refer the objection of the petitioner under section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court in accordance with law. (C) The respondents may be commanded either to disburse or accept the compensation amount till the disposal of the land acquisition reference case before the appropriate Civil Court.” In the opinion of this court, the petitioner has a misconceived notion about the scope of Section 18 of the 2 Land Acquisition Act which reads as follows:- “18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector‟s award. (b) in other words within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub- section (2) , or within six months from the date the collector‟s award whichever period shall first expire.” This aspect of the matter becomes further clear when this court has perused the application filed by the petitioner before the Collector of District which reads as follows:- “ In the Court of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur Ref:- In the matter of Acquisition of Land bearing Khesra No. 873 of village- Param Jiwar, P. S. Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur, Anchal-Aural, Bhag- 1. Sri Ram Dayal Pandey s/o Late Deo Nandan Pandey, village and P.O. Param Jiwar, P. S. Hathauri, Anchal- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner Versus Braj Kishore Yadav s/o Late Jevar Rai, resident of village & P. O. Param Jiwar, P.S. Hathauri, Anchal- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur. 3 …Opp. Party. Humble petition on behalf of the applicant Most Respectfully Sheweth:- 1. That this petition is coming in open exclusive and continuous possession of the land described in Schedule-I of this petition as all right and to the knowledge of all including the defendant for more than 30 years. That the house and Bathan of the petitioner stood of R.S.P. No. 873 which is contiguous to R.S.P. 2763 and 2841 and about 25 years ago there was a talk of exchange of this plot with another plot belonging to this petitioner and this petitioner came in possession of the Schedule I about exchange of their plot No. 2763, and 2841 with R.S.P. No. 873 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner extended his house and boring over R.S.P. No. 873 the land described in Schedule I here in below and is continuing in open exclusive and continuous possession for the last 25 years as of right. That the no deed of exchange was executed between the parties at any subsequent stage but the petitioner continued his open exclusive and continuous possession over the land said plot to the knowledge of all as of right for more than 25 years and has acquired perfect right and title thereto. That said petitioner‟s land has been acquired in Muzaffarpur-Sitamarhi Railway Line construction by land Acquisition, Muzaffarpur and the person who held local inspection has found the residential house and sahan and possession of the petitioner. That the opposite party subsequent got a deed executed only in respect of land from one of the brothers and in any case he did not and could not come in possession as he was not transferee of the entire body of person in whose ancestor‟s name the khatian stands. That the Kebala of the opp. Party does not contain the boring and house and the same have been installed by the petitioner and the kebala mentioned by the opp. Party does not indicate that his kebala contained any house or boring nor the same has been valued and no stand has been thereon and so the kebala in under stamped and wholly in admissible in evidence and can not pass any title or possession to the alleged purchaser opp. Party. That it is duty of the Land Acquisition Department to pay the compensation to the person in possession or together the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent Civil 4 Court. That it is also submitted that the alleged vendor or brother of the vendor of the opp. Party has not laid any claim for compensation as they have no concern with the land, house, boring aforesaid. It is, accordingly prayed that the compensation of the land detailed in Schedule I below be paid to the petitioner or the same be withheld and the matter may be referred the contempt civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. And for this the petitioner shall every pray. Schedule –„I‟ Khata No Khesra No. Area Boundary 157 873 .66Dec N-Madan Pandey Jugul Pandey Ram Dayal Pandey. S- Jugul Pandey, Ram Dayal Pandey E- Ram Dayal pandey W-Ram Dayal Pandey Jugal Pandey. Situating in village- Param Jiwar, P.S. Hathauri Anchal Aurai, District Muzaffarpur Schedule-„II‟ Khata No. Khesra No. Area Boundary 462 2763 .42 dec. N-Jaishilal Pandey S-Ram Chandra Pandey E- Jaishilal Pandey W- Jaishilal Pandey & Ors. 359 2841 .23 dec. N-Mundrika Singh S- Ram Jash Pandey E- 2845 & etc. W- Khesra No. 2842.” From a bare reading of the aforementioned application it would appear that it was out and out a case of Section 30 of the Act which reads as follows:- “30. Dispute as to apportionment._ when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the 5 same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. “ The grievance of the petitioner therefore that no reference was made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act as was noted in the order of this court dated 9.7.2009 was apparently misconceived. In this regard the admitted position is that the official respondents have already paid compensation to respondent no.4 as would be evident from paragraphs no.8 to 12 which reads as follows:- “8. That in view of the statement made in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the land in question related to R.S.P. No. 873 of Khata No.157 Areas 3 Dec. of village-Paramjibar Tara Jibar, Anchal-Aurai, District-Muzaffarpur, R.S. Khatian of R.S.P. No. 873 stands recorded in the name of Jaishilal Pandey. Jaiselal Pandey died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Chandrika Pandey and Jyoti Narayan Pandey. After the death of Jaisilal Pandey, Chandrika Pandey and Jyoti Narayan Pandey became separated and 33 dec. from east, out of R.S.P. No.873 was allotted in the share of Chandrika Pandey and remaining 34 decimals of R.S.P. No. 873 was allotted in the share of Jyoti Narayan Pandey. 9. That after the death of Chandrika Pandey his son Manoj Kumar Pandey transferred 33 Dec. of R.S.P. No. 873 to respondent no.4 (Braj Kishore 6 Yadav) through registered sale deed dated 31.7.2002, out of which only 3 dec. has been acquired by the State government. Respondent no.4 got his name mutated over his purchased land and Jamabandi was also created in the name of Respondent no.4 and he has been paying rent and getting rent receipt. The aforesaid 3 dec. which was acquired by the State govt. contains Bricks built house of respondent no.4 and the same has been coming in peaceful possession of respondent no.4. On the basis of R.S.P. Khatian sale deed dated 31.9.02 executed by Manoj Kumar Pandey, son of late Chandrika Pandey in favour of Respondent No.4, rent receipt and report of C.O. and Anchal Amlas with regard to factum of possession compensation was granted to Respondent No.4 and no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the State in granting the compensation. 10. That prior to granting compensation, an enquiry of C.O. and Anchal Amlas was made and all the authorities reported that the house standing over 3 Dec. of R.S.P. No.873 belongs to and is in possession of Respondent No.4. In course of enquiry, it was reported that the property in question belonged to this petitioner (Ram Dayal Pandey). Accordingly, a valuation report was called for from the Executive Engineer. 11. That in the meantime respondent no.4 filed objection and dispute arose between respondent no.4 and the petitioner. Thereafter the Anchal Adhikari was directed to visit the spot and submit a report with regard to factum of possession of the property in question. The C.O. after visiting 7 the spot and after due and thorough enquiry found possession of respondent no.4 over the property in question and submitted his report. 12. That it is submitted that there are sufficient document to prove that the property in question was in possession of respondent no.4, such as, sale deed, rent receipt, enquiry report of the Anchal Amlas and, as such, there was no dispute of title between the petitioner and respondent no.4.” Thus at the end of the day when this court would find that issue is one under Section 30 of the Act and that too confined on three decimals of land alleged to be containing a house for which the compensation is said to have already been paid to respondent no. 4, all that this Court can give opportunity to the petitioner is that if he would approach the Civil court for such apportionment of compensation for aforementioned three decimals of land, the same would be gone into by the competent civil court in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner that impugned order dated 12.8.2005 would stand in his way inasmuch as the competent authority exercising power under Section 30 of the Act has refused to make such reference is neither here nor there. What has been actually held by the 8 authority while exercising power under Section 30 of the Act is that on the basis of entry in the revenue records, the respondent no. 4 appeared to be only person interested in the land. Therefore, if the petitioner who seeks remedy for apportionment of compensation in terms of Section 30 of the Act even when admittedly not served notice under Section 12(2) of the Act as with regard to award and payment of amount of compensation, he can only approach the civil court for apportionment of award by impleading respondent no. 4 as a party to that application as was held by this Court in the case of Sarjug Rai vs. Mst. Maheshwari Devi and another reported in AIR 1975 Pat. 192 wherein it was held as follows:- “10. With reference to the authorities referred to above and after examining the scheme of the Act, of course, it cannot be doubted that a complete machinery has been provided for settlement of the dispute, about the quantum of compensation, by restoring to the procedure prescribed by the Act as well as the dispute about the rights of the owners to compensation. But if notice of the filing of the award in question is not served on an interested person, he cannot be held to be bound to prosecute the remedy available under the Act itself as he may not apply to the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act, much less he was bound to make such an application. The other provision for making a reference in Section 30 being optional to the Collector himself, such a person need not make any such application at all under Section 30 and straightway file a suit in the Civil Court in its ordinary civil jurisdiction. This view finds well support from two cases of this Court namely, (i) Md. Imram, AIR 1972 Pat 482 referred to above and (2) 9 State of Bihar v. Smt. Banarsi Devi, AIR 1973 Pat 146 where the scope of and distinction between the references under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act have been clearly indicated.” (underlined for emphasis) Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Dr. G. H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 237 is not wholly misconceived. It needs to be also observed that this Court in the case of Sarjug Rai (supra) has dealt with the possibility of such a situation. Thus in keeping the aforementioned judgment of this Court in the case of Sarjug Rai (surpa) it must be held that the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to the impugned order is wholly misconceived. Counsel for the respondent no. 4 however would fairly submit that he has no objection if the dispute in hand relating to three decimals of land pertaining to the house in question in Plot No. 873 is decided by the Civil Court. Therefore, considering the submission of the parties this Court would direct the competent civil court that if an application is filed by the petitioner as with regard to apportionment of amount of compensation 10 between him and respondent no. 4 as also any other person claiming interest in the said land in terms of Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act the same would be decided in accordance with law and to that extent the impugned order passed by the Collector dated 12.8.2005 would not stand in the way of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)