The authorities have the power to freeze the account and recover excess amounts based on the correct nature of the acquired land, and the jurisdiction of the Sub Judge is limited to deciding the quantum of compensation, not the nature of the land.

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and State Bank of India.

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 5540 of 2018

2. The Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition by adding further prayers. Basically, the same relate to the notice issued to the petitioner by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria relating to acquisition proceeding.

3. As the writ petition relates to payment of retiral dues, the same having no nexus or connection with any Land Acquisition Proceeding, in the opinion of the Court, the Interlocutory Application is misconceived.

4. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application No. 5540 of 2018 stands dismissed.

5. However, for the cause of action, the petitioner is at liberty to move in a fresh proceeding.

Re.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18270 of 2016

6. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief’s:

"i. For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to unseal the State Bank Saving Account No. 11712617184 of the petitioner so that petitioner can make transaction pension from the said account as petitioner's pension is being credited in the said account. The Bank account of the petitioner is freezed on the instruction of the District authority.

ii. For the other relief’s for which petitioner is found entitle in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. Some land of the petitioner was acquired for making National Highway on Indo-Nepal Border Area. The compensation amount of Rs. 33,11,352/- was also paid to the petitioner. After that complaint came that excess payment has been made to the petitioner as the land was agricultural and not residential. Accordingly, report was called by the Collector, Araria and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria submitted a report finding the complaint to be correct and that the land was agricultural. Based on the same, the Collector, Araria set up a six men enquiry committee which again found the land to be agricultural. In light of the aforesaid, an amount of Rs. 29,45,052/- was found to have been paid in excess of the actual value of the land of the petitioner which was acquired. He was given notice to deposit the same. Since the amount of compensation was paid into the account of the petitioner in which he also received pension, the authorities directed the concerned Branch of the State Bank of India to freezed the account. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has moved the Court in the present writ application.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities cannot withhold the pension as the same can be done only under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, after following the due procedure which has not been done. It was further submitted that even such proceeding now is barred as the petitioner has superannuated about 25 years back. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities have no power to revise the value of the compensation as the same can be done only by reference before the Sub Judge. It was submitted that the petitioner could not reply in time to the notice dated 28.07.2017, as he was ill and at Ranchi and, thus, when he came back, he has given his show cause on 23.10.2017, which has not been considered. Learned counsel has also shown to the Court the order dated 23.05.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 8011 of 2018 in the case of Bhaskar Anand vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., where status quo was directed to be maintained and the next date in the case was fixed for 22.06.2018, and the authorities were directed to file counter affidavit.

9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are totally misconceived. It was submitted that though no such objection has been either mentioned or raised in the pleadings filed on behalf of the petitioner but coming to the objection that the matter had to be referred to the Sub-Judge, the same is misplaced. It was submitted that in t