JAWAHAR LAL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dt. 26.6.2001 (Annexure 4), passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas, in Case No. 10M of 2000 -2001 (Moti Lal Sah and Ors. vs. Raj Kumari Devi & Ors.) whereby he has held that respondent no. 4 is entitled to the entire proceeds of the compensation amount for the lands acquired to the extent covered by present writ petition. Let it be clarified at the outset that there is an error, perhaps a typographical error, in the impugned order that the compensation amount is to be paid to respondent no. 4 who is husband of respondent no. 5. The name of respondent no. 5 (Raj Kumari Devi) ought to have been there, instead of respondent no. 4 (Hira Lai Sah),

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order dt. 21.8.2000 (Annexure 4), passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, calling upon the three brothers to receive the compensation amount in three equal shares was the correct order for various reasons. The same is fully consistent with the aforesaid judgment of the trial court. He further submits that the Land Acquisition Officer exceeded his powers under Section 12(2) of the Act by passing the aforesaid order dt. 21.8.2000. He also submits that the aforesaid order dt. 26.6.2001 is in the nature of an order of review which is in the scheme of the Act is impermissible, inasmuch as no power of review has been conferred on the Land Acquisition Officer. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 237, (Dr. G. H. Grant V/s. State of Bihar). He lastly submits that the situation as it legally stands at present, judgment of the trial court is in their favour, and the deed of gift, which is the sole basis of the claim of respondent nos.4 and