The Collector lacks jurisdiction to review an award post-preparation and must refer disputes regarding compensation to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2009 along with all consequential actions taken in L.A. Case No. 07/2015-16 including the award dated 25.09.2019 prepared in favour of the private respondent. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.09.2021, wherein authorities have passed the order of recovery of the compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement; be quashed.

3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land situated within Mauza-Paharpur, Khata No. 7 and within Mauza-Karnkol, Khata No. 24 (hereinafter jointly referred to as the scheduled land) was owned by one Bhim Singh. Bhim Singh died issueless. During his lifetime he had not paid the rent with respect to the scheduled land. After the demise of Bhim Singh, one Late Latoo Singh, i.e. the ancestor of the Petitioners paid the arrears of the rent and subsequently scheduled landswere settled in the name of Latoo Singh. This settlement was confirmed in Settlement Case No. 32 of 1933-34 and Settlement Case No. 25 of 1933-34 vide order dated 9.6.1934 and 16.3.1934, respectively.

After the demise of Latoo Singh, the name of the grandfather of the petitioners i.e. Chaua Singh was entered in the khatiyan. It has been submitted that after the demise of Latoo Singh, the revenue rent is being realised from his legal heirs i.e. the Petitioners in the case at hand.

4. In the year 2015- 2016, the 3rd Respondent acquired the scheduled land for the purpose of expansion of Deoghar Airport. Notices dated 16.7.2016, were issued in the name of all4 (four) petitioners with respect to the scheduled land. Pursuant to the notices, Petitioners appeared before 3rd Respondent and produced all relevant documents including the copy of the order(s) passed in settlement cases, khatiyan and rent receipts. However, no compensation was released in favour of the Petitioners despite Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 having recognized the right of the Petitioners over the scheduled property and the compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement was released in their favour by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

He further submits that after a lapse of more than 3 (three) years, 4th Respondent filed an application before the 3rd Respondent, for award of compensation in his favour. It has been contended by the Petitioner that the application was made on basis of a forged genealogy table, wherein he claimed to be a descendant of Bhim Singh. The 3rd Respondent, accepting the version of 4th Respondent, to be gospel truth directed the release of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,13,78,510/- (INR One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Only) in his favour vide order dated 25.9.2019.

As soon as the Petitioners came to known about the same, an objection was raised by them under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) vide application dated 21.11.2019. However, instead of taking steps as per the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2013 and making a reference to the Authority; 3rd Respondent chose to adjudicate the dispute vide its order dated 14.12.2019, wherein he affirmed his previous order dated 25.9.2019 and passed the order to release the compensation in favour of Respondent No.4.

Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an application before 2nd Respondent; however, the authority denied to entertain their request and asked them to file the application before 3rd Respondent. In the meantime, another notice contained in memo no. 1499 (a) of 15.9.2021 was received by the Petitioners wherein they were called upon to return the compensation paid to them towards rehabilitation and resettlement.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the action of Respondent No. 1 to 3 is patentl