- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Simdegarespondent no. 3 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3/2009-10 rejecting the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed that respondent no. 3 may be directed to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(2.) Mr. H. Waris, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only question involved in this writ petition is whether the title of the land acquired could have been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer or not. He further submitted that respondent no. 3 has decided title by the impugned order in favour of the respondent no. 4 which is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that in the Land Acquisition Proceeding, petitioner filed objections against the preparation of award and payment of compensation to respondent no. 4.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State referring to the counter affidavit submitted that inspite of several notices, petitioner could not produce documents in support of her objection, and therefore, it was rightly rejected and no title has been decided by the impugned order. He further submitted that respondent no. 4 produced all the documents in support of his contentions. He further pointed out that at the time of mutation made in favour of respondent no. 4, the correction slip was issued showing reduction of land of the petitioner to the extent of land sold by her to the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 4, but she did not raise any objection anywhere for 34 years, and then raised oral objection saying that she has not sold land to the predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 4.-2-;