IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8830 of 2011 1. TAPESHWARI PRASAD SINHA SON OF LATE GAJRAJ SINGH R/O VILLAGE JALALPUR, P.S. RUPASPUR, PATNA …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, LAND ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR(INCHARGE LAND ACQUISITION) PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 6. THE GANGA RAIL BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THROUGH ITS PROEJECT MANAGER/OFFICER, PATNA …RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :Mr.Manoj Kr. Singh & :Mr.Brajesh Kumar Pandey For the State :Mr. R.B. Mahto, Advocate General & :Mr. Krishna Chandra AC to AG ----------- 02. 16.05.2011 Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to non- payment of compensation in respect of the land measuring 0.03 decimals appertaining to khata no.76, khesra no.452 situated in village Jalalpur in the district of Patna. Earlier, he made an application for compensation which was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 8.4.2003. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order, approached this Court in CWJC No. 14651 of 2008. This Court by a proceeding dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure-7), disposed of the said application by the following order:- I, therefore, direct that the petitioner should move before the Land Acquisition Officer and produce all the relevant documents and state his claim for payment of compensation before him. On receipt of the application, the Land Acquisition Officer would necessarily have to pass 2 a speaking order with respect to the claim of the petitioner in the Land Acquisition Case No.2/2-03. In case, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is passed, the petitioner would have the liberty to take recourse of the remedy provided under the Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner thereafter moved the respondent-District Land Acquisition Officer who, after perusing the entire material on record, found that the documents of title relating to the land(s) claimed by the petitioner were not produced. It has also been found that the rent receipts produced on behalf of the petitioner were found containing over writing and thus not inspiring confidence. Accordingly, the claim of compensation in respect of the aforesaid land(s) was rejected. Having heard the parties, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the respondent-District Land Acquisition Officer cannot be altered and/or interfered with by invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, if so advised, may ventilate his grievance before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )