IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6898 of 2008 1. BACHCHU PUJHAR, SON OF LATE NAVI PUJHAR 2. DEGAN YADAV @ DEGAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE LALJIT YADAV @ LALJIT MAHTO BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAIHDIH, P.O. KIYAJORI, P.S. CHAKAI, DISTRICT JAMUI. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNGER 3. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PUNASI JALASAI YOJNA, JAMUI, DISTRICT JAMUI 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, JAMUI, DISTRICT JAMUI 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, CHAKAI, DISTRICT JAMUI 7. SMT. RAM SAKHI DEVI, WIFE OF NARSINGH PRASAD RAI 8. SMT. CHINTA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI KAMLESHWARI PRASAD RAI 9. SMT. GOKULA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI BABULAL RAI 10.SMT. CHINTAMANI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SUDAMA RAI 11.SMT. JHUMA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI HARNARAYAN RAI 12.SRI KASHI NATH RAI, SON OF SRI ASHESHWAR RAI ALL RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 12 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KIYAJORI, P.O. KIYAJORI, P.S. CHAKAI, DISTRICT JAMUI. ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 30.7.2010 The petitioners made an objection with respect to the title of the private respondents over a piece of land which is under acquisition and payment of compensation in Land Acquisition Proceedings relating to the year 1995. The case of the petitioners is that they have acquired title over the land on the basis of a Hukumnama granted by the ex-landlord and as such their case should be referred for adjudication under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an order was passed by this Court on 2.7.1993 in CWJC No. 1626 of 1993 in which the Court had directed that after a proper enquiry the matter should be referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners want the same relief from this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that no document whatsoever was produced 2 before the Collector regarding the possession of the petitioners. The Hukumnama, rent receipts etc. were not made available and as such the claim raised on behalf of the petitioners is not maintainable. It has further been stated that the petitioners have illegally made construction over portion of Plot No. 1306 which is not under acquisition. The claim of the petitioners to be considered as raiyats of the land which have been acquired has been filed after great delay. The acquisition proceedings were of the year 1995, and the objection is being raised after more than 10 years without proper pleadings or foundational facts. This Court does not have any way of knowing the stage of the proceedings. The petitioners cannot take advantage of order of this Court issued in 1993. After orders of this Court the section 30 application was disposed of in the year 2000. As such, this Court finds that the writ application cannot be entertained on the basis of the submissions aforesaid. In the result, this application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)