IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the petitioners' entitlement to compensation for land acquisition, directing payment despite the respondents' unsubstantiated claims of doubt regarding land records.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to pay forthwith the compensation amount of Rs.84,038.17/- each with interest to each of the petitioners in view of the notice dated 23.06.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby and where under, the said compensation has been awarded to the petitioners in award no. 37 and 38 respectively for acquisition of their landed property situated under Mouza-Choudhary Bandh, P.S.-Bagodar, Thana No. 86, Dist.-Giridih for the dedicated freight corridor project of the Indian Railway.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners late Dwarikanath Jha during his life time got share of 7.21 acres land from his ancestral khatyani raiyati landed property. After assessment of the rent of the said land, the Circle Officer, Bagodar has opened Jamabandi of the said land in the name of the father of the petitioners namely Dwarikanath Jha in the Register-II and since then, the rent of the said land is paid to the State Government. The petitioners have also two brothers namely Subhas Kumar Jha and Prakash Kumar Jha. After the death of their father-Dwarikanath Jha, all the said four sons including the petitioners are enjoying right, title, possession and ownership over the aforesaid landed property of their father without their being any hindrance or obstruction. In the year 2013, the land acquisition authority has started to acquire the lands and the respondent no. 3 prepared the award no. 37, 38, 39 and 40 in the name of the four sons of late Dwarikanath Jha for payment of compensation of Rs.84,038.17/- to each of them. The petitioners submitted separately all the required documents for disbursal of the compensation amount.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 3 disbursed the compensation amount of Rs.84,038.17/- to the similarly placed brothers of the petitioners namely Subhas Kumar Jha and Prakash Kumar Jha in the month of August, 2017 but they are not paying the same to the petitioners without any rhyme or reason in-spite of their making several representation to the concerned authority. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that as mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit by letter no. 1145 dated 22.11.2017, the Circle Officer, Bagodar sent enquiry report to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih stating in serial no. 04 and 05 of award no. 37 and 38 that after enquiry the entries made in Register-II Volume 2 page no. 74 of Village- Choudhari Bandh, Thana No. 86 in the name of the petitioners Anil Kumar Jha and Hiralal Jha are doubtful and issuance of further rent receipt have been stayed as such land possession certificate cannot be issued. Hence, the amount has not been released to the petitioners.

6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that a sum of Rs.76,42,389/- in respect of 40 awards including that of the petitioners have been deposited by the respondent no. 7 on 10.07.2017 with the respondent no. 3.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are the sons of late Dwarikanath Jha and that Dwarikanath Jha had two other sons also namely Subhas Kumar Jha and Prakash Kumar Jha. The undisputed fact also remains that the respondent no. 3 prepared the awards no. 37 and 38 in favour of the petitioners for payment of compensation of Rs.84,038.17/- each. It is also undisputed fact that the respondent no. 7 has already deposited the said amount with the respondent no. 3. Though it is contended by the respondents that the entry made in the Registe