S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 11.30.2015 in L.A. Case No. 6 of 2008 -09, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner claims himself descendant of one Mana Mahto who and one Mahli Mahto were the recorded tenant in respect of land comprised in R.S. Khata No. 134, Plot No. 180 admeasuring about 2.01 acres in village Hetu. Both Mana Mahto and Mahli Mahto were entitled for equal shares in the said property. The petitioner is the son of one Basudeo Gope who was grand -son of said Mana Mahto. It is claimed that the legal representatives and successors of Mana Mahto are still continuing in possession over his share in the aforesaid land. For expansion of Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, land was acquired vide L.A. Case No. 6 of 2008 -09. The aforesaid land of the petitioner is also acquired and award No. 51 was prepared. It is stated that for the aforesaid land, award was prepared in the name of Mana Mahto and other and notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.07.2011 to the interested persons. In the said proceeding, Bhagat Sahu, Dhumeshwar Sahu and others claiming title over the aforesaid land comprised in Plot No. 180 by virtue of a sale -deed executed on 27.02.1959 by one Mani Nath Mahto, S/o. Mahli Mahto, staked claim for compensation. The petitioner and other legal representatives of Mana Mahto had no knowledge of the sale -deed dated 27.02.1959 and mutation with respect to the said land was done behind the back of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner disputed the claim of Bhagat Sahu, Dhumeshwar Sahu etc. and contended that the matter may be referred for adjudication under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, vide impugned order dated 11.03.2015, the District Land Acquisition Officer has ordered payment of compensation to the legal heirs and successors of Chintamani Sahu and Deonath Sahu. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of provision under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to a dispute of title which the District Land Acquisition Officer should have referred to civil court for adjudication however, the District Land Acquisition Officer has decided the title of the petitioner vis   -vis Chintamani Sahu and Deonath Sahu, which is illegal and without jurisdiction.
(3.) FROM the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, it is gathered that notice dated 25.07.2011 in L.A. Case No. 06/2008 -09 was issued to Mana Mahto and others for award of compensation. The petitioner filed a written objection in L.A. Case No. 06/2008 -09 reiterating that Mana Mahto and Mahli Mahto both had equal shares in Khewat No. 16 and Mani Nath Mahto had no right to sell the land comprised in Plot No. 180 and thus, the alleged purchasers cannot claim to have came in possession of the half share of Mana Mahto by virtue of sale -deed dated 27.02.1959. Disputing right, title or interest of the purchasers in the land by virtue of sale -deed dated 27.02.1959, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the legal heirs and successors of Mana Mahto nor the petitioner had any knowledge of the said sale -deed and the purchasers never came in possession over the said land. I find that in the proceeding of L.A. Case No. 06/2008 -09, the purchasers also filed applications seeking compensation whereupon, notices were issued to the purchasers for producing documents and other evidence in support of their claim. Vide order dated 11.03.2015, the District Land Acquisition Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner and directed payment of compensation to the legal heirs and successors of Chintamani Sahu and Deonath Sahu.;