IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10076 of 2010 1. Kaushal Kishore Jha S/O Parash Nath Jha R/O Vill.- Khaira Pahari P.S. Piprahi, Distt.- Sitamarhi Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Sitamarhi at Sitamarhi 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer- Cum- Collector, Sitamarhi 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi at Sitamarhi ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Suresh Prasad Singh-1 and Mr. Vitesh Kumar Singh. For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.III 5 28/6/2011 By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Sub Judge-I, Sitamarhi, in Misc. Case no. 9 of 2003, being order dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure 6 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner). It appears that there was a land acquisition proceeding initiated for strengthening of embankment of Bagmati river being Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 5 of 1978-79, which was before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi. In those land acquisition proceedings , various awards were passed in relation to petitioner’s father, who then alive and other family members as well. The compensation was received under protest and allegedly applications were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer, who was also designated as Collector for referring the matter in terms of Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for re-calculating the compensation payable. This was done in June/July, 1981. The matter was being pursuaded by the father of the petitioner, who then died. The petitioner did not know of these proceedings. He 2 knows from bunch of old papers and on basis of these bunch of applications, he made enquiry from land acquisition office and he was told that there was no such applications pending. Ultimately having failed to persuade to the authority, he filed this case before Sub judge –I, Sitamarhi in 2003 being Misc. Case no. 9 of 2003 for a direction to the respondents to forward the reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for decision. It is averred that in these proceedings evidence was led and the Court was, prima facie, satisfied that reference applications were filed. Therefore, it first directed the State to produce the reference register. Having adjured the matter for several months, it then directed the petitioner to produce certified copy of the reference register. Petitioner applied for certified copy of the reference register but no such certified copy was being given. The matter was adjourned day after day and ultimately, by the impugned order, the court below after giving finding that the petitioner is unable to produce the certified copy of the reference register and as no petition for time was filed on that date, dismissed the miscellaneous application of the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner submits that reference register is an official register maintained in the office of the Land acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi and first direction, if any, ought to have been issued to the State to produce the same from their own custody. The direction to the petitioner to produce certified copy of the said register itself was misconceived and showed non application of mind. It was then submitted that by fixing the 3 onus on a wrong person and upon failure to discharge, dismissal of miscellaneous application is wholly misconceived. The order must thus be quashed. A counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the claim of the petitioner is belated. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father had received compensation without protest. It is further stated that no application on behalf of petitioner’s father or other family members was at all filed in terms of Section 18 of the Act and as such no reference could be made. By earlier order, this Court had directed to produce the original records. The petitioner has also produced copy of the reference applications, which are in large number. From the original records it appears that State did not maintain any separate register as a reference register recording the receipt of reference applications. The State had taken a stand in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s father has received the compensation without protest. This Court on perusal of original records and the payment register, which is appended thereto, finds that this is a false statement. Paras Nath Jha, petitioner’s father, has received various compensation amounts in different awards in those land acquisition proceedings. He has clearly written on every such receipt that he has received the compensation award under protest. What is more surprising is that there were over hundred awards made and apparently from the record it does not appear to be a single reference application. This appears to be quite unnatural. 4 On behalf of the petitioner a copy that has been produced shows that they were all addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that all these were separately recorded as after disbursement of the compensation amount, the final proceeding ended . No further order sheet is at all maintained and therefore all reference applications, which were filed were kept separately and never processed. My attention is drawn to one of the order sheets passed by this Court in a similar matter relating to the same land and before this Court State accepted that reference applications, which have been filed in 1993 were still pending and have not been forwarded. These orders are to be found in CWJC No. 8675 of 1009, disposed of on 9.11.2009.The petitioner further relied on the provision of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, which clearly stipulates that in case of intervention of Civil Court, if the award is enhanced in respect of any person awarded with compensation under the Act, then all such similarly situated persons related to the same acquisition proceeding would automatically get enhanced compensation, notwithstanding no application having been filed by the in terms of Section 18 of the Act. In my view it is not necessary to go all into the questions because it would be open to the Civil Court to enquire into these aspects of the matter. Suffice it to say that learned Sub Judge totally misdirected himself in the matter. He cannot direct the private petitioner to produce government record or certified copy thereof. State was a party before it. The direction 5 has to go to the State. Thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law. With the above observation and direction, the writ application is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)