IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15542 of 2005 SMT.BANARSI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI ANANDA CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARIYAPUR KAPHEN, P.S. KURHANNI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. SRI DEWANAND CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE KAPILDEO CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARIAPUR KAPHEN, P.S. KUDHANI, THANA NO. 299, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 6. SMT. AHILYA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI DEVANAND CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARIAPUR KAPHEN, P.S. KUDHANI, THANA NO. 299, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 7. SRI MURARI CHAUDHARY, SON OF NOT KNOWN, C/o SMT. AHILYA DEVI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARIAPUR, KAPHEN, P.S. KUDHANI, THANA NO. 299, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 6.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. It appears that the petitioner and her husband have serious dispute with private respondents inasmuch as there are three suits pending before the Sub Judge I, Muzaffarpur being Partition Suit No. 161/2002, T.S. No. 488/2003 and T.S. No. 451/2003. They also happen to be litigating with respect to the properties which are under acquisition by the State Government for the purpose of setting up a power station. In a similar matter where the husband of the petitioner had approached this court in a writ petition, this court had ordered that the Collector of the district ought to refer the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil court for determination of right of the parties. This petitioner, that is, the wife of Anand Choudhary has filed an application under section 18 of the act as far back as in 2003 itself. 2 I accordingly direct that the Collector, Muzaffarpur should refer the matter to the civil court under section 18 of the Act within six weeks on receipt of a copy of this order. In this case it appears that the petitioner has been objecting with respect to grant of the award to the respondents from the very beginning and as such the question of limitation would not arise in this case. A similar order has already been passed in the case of petitioner’s husband vide CWJC No. 9360/2003, disposed of on 2.5.2006. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)