The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in resolving disputes over compensation apportionment under the National Highways Act, and the nullity of orders passed without jurisdiction.

Prashant Kumar, J.

This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by respondent no.3, whereby and where under he decided the dispute relating to apportionment of compensation himself by usurping the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

2. It appears that lands, pertaining to khata no. 49, plot nos. 171,361,365,462 and 545, area 0.90, 1.12, 0.37.0.25 and 1.91 acres respectively of Mouza Kothari, thana no.88, Ramgarh acquired for construction of National Highway no.33. It further appears that for the said lands Award Nos. 27,64,68,72 and 88 issued in favour of Mani Ohdar Bedia and Bhodu Bedia, son of Kaila Bedia and Bedesiya Bedia son of Dhani Bedia. It appears that petitioners filed an objection (Annexure-1), before respondent no.3, wherein they stated that the lands pertaining to khata no.49 are jointly recorded in the name of Mani Ohdar Bedia, Bhodu Bedia and Bidesiya Bedia. They also stated that they are descendants of Bidesiya Bedia. Thus, they are also entitled to get compensation.

3. After receiving the objection, respondent no.3 issued notices to Mani Ohdar Bedia ,Bhodu Bedia and Bidesiya Bedia vide Annexure-2. Thereafter, petitioner had filed another detailed application, wherein they gave genealogical table showing that they are descendants of Bidesiya Bedia, whereas respondent nos. 5 and 6 are descendants of Mani Ohdar Bedia. They further stated that as they are legal heirs of Bidesiya Bedia, they are also entitled to receive compensation amount. In the said application, petitioner further made averments that Mani Ohdar Bedia was a member of Schedule Tribe and his sons Paran Ohdar, Akla Ohdar and Sukra Ohdar died leaving behind no male heirs. They also stated that their wives have no right to inherit joint family property. Thus, joint interest of Mani Ohdar Bedia and Bhodu Ohdar Bedia devolves upon Bidesiya Bedia. Accordingly, petitioners claim that they are entitled to receive entire compensation amount.

4. It appears that respondent no.5 and 6 filed a rejoinder to the application of the petitioners, wherein they gave another genealogical table. According to them Phirangi Bedia had two sons, namely, Mani Bedia and Bhodu Bedia. Bhodu Bedia died issue less. Mani Bedia had three sons,namely Paran Bedia, Akla Bedia and Shukra Bedia. Lalo Devi is wife of Paran Bedia. Whereas Akla Bedia had one daughter, namely, Sadma. Sadma had one son, namely, Kishun Bedia. Kishun Bedia has two sons namely, Nakul Bedia and Subhash Bedia.Shukara Bedia has two daughters, namely, Mankuria and Niraso. Niraso has one son namely, Maksu Bedia. However,respondent nos. 5 and 6 admitted that petitioners are descendants of Bidesiya Bedia.

5. Further case of respondent no. 5 and 6 is that Lalo Devi,wife of Paran Bedia executed a registered Will in favour of Mankuria, Kishun and Maksu. They further stated that after death of Lalo Devi. Mostt. Mankuria had filed Probate case in the Civil Court, Hazaribagh which was numbered as Probate Case No. 53/64. It is stated that in the said Probate Case, sons of Bidesiya Bedia, namely, Manbodh, Chhaku and Khandra appeared and filed objection. Thus, said Probate Case converted into a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 09/65. It is stated that in the said Probate Case right title, interest and possession of the Mankuria and Kishun has been declared by the Court below. Later on, names of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 mutated. Accordingly, respondent nos. 5 and 6 had claimed that they are entitled to get entire compensation amount.

6. It appears that respondent no.3 vide his order dated 20.10.2011 rejected the objection filed by petitioners and concluded that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to get entire compensation amount, because probate court declared their right, title and possession over the lands in question. The said order is impugned in this writ application.

7. Shri Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is dispute