IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.160 of 2007 ---- Ramesh Rai son of Late Anantoo Rai, Resident of village Goria Aasthan, P.O. Sadikpur, P.S. Maner, District-Patna. -- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Patna. 2. Radhey Rai son of Late Anantoo Rai, Resident of Village Goria Aasthan, P.O.Sadikpur, P.S.Maner, District-Patna. 3. Phula Devi W/o Mahesh Rai D/O Late Anantoo Rai, Resident of village- Phulia tole, P.O.-Mubarkpur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. -- Opposite parties. ----- For the petitioner : M/s Binay Kumar & Arbind Pd. Singh, Advocates. For the State(O.P.no.1): Ms. Binita Singh, Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General-III. For O.P.nos.2 & 3 : M/s Sheela Sharma & Manju Sinha,Advocates. ---- 03. 13.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming that he is the son of the awardee in Land Acquisition Case No.12 of 1999 and has challenged order 01.12.2006 by which the Land Acquisition Judge-cum- Subordinate Judge-II, Patna rejected his petition for substituting him in place of the awardee. 3. Although the private opposite parties supported the claim of the petitioner, but learned counsel for the State contested the claim of the petitioner on various grounds. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for - 2 - the parties as well as the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the learned court below has passed the impugned order after considering the entire matter in detail and also finding that the petitioners had earlier filed a petition for substituting their names in place of the deceased awardee claiming themselves to be their legal heirs and the petition was disposed on 04.02.2006 by the then Land Acquisition Judge discussing the entire matter in detail and even the order passed in the title suit was also discussed and it was found that the petitioners were always making a new assertion and fresh allegation from time to time. 5. It was also found by the learned court that the amounts of the execution case were passing to the wrong hand and the legal heirs of the deceased are not getting the fruit of the compensation award. It also transpired that in the said circumstances all the applicants were required to furnish succession certificate in accordance with law to prove that they were the legal heirs of the deceased awardee Late Anantu Rai. Learned court below has also found that in stead of filing succession certificate, they filed fresh petition to substitute their names as legal heirs because obtaining the succession certificate was very costly. In the said circumstances, their petition was rightly rejected by the learned court below. However, the petitioner who, according to him, could not afford to obtain succession certificate due to its cost has moved this court - 3 - against the impugned order in this civil revision. 6. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)