Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order bearing Memo No. 295 dated 9th November, 2010 as also Letter No. 586 dated 27th August, 2013 both issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Project, Mango, Jamshedpur. By the said orders at Annexures -8 & 8/1, petitioner's claim for reassessment of Pakka Makan (brick built house) situate on part of portion of Plot No. 736 under Khata No. 256 in Village -Dulmi, P.S. -Tiruldih under the district of Saraikela Kharsawan earlier district of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has been rejected on the grounds that petitioner was paid the compensation amount awarded in Award No. 164 on 5th May, 1989 itself totaling Rs. 52,077.82. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act for making payment of amounts after the awarded amount. If the petitioner awardee was aggrieved by the amount awarded, he did not avail of provisions of Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act within the time stipulated. The entire claim for reassessment of the awarded amount is therefore suffering from gross delay which cannot be overcome and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the aforesaid grounds. Petitioner while assailing the impugned orders has also made a prayer for directing the respondents to make a Reference under Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act to the competent court for determination of the amount of compensation and enhancement.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a notice at Annexure -3 whereunder persons aggrieved of acquisition undertaken under Subarnarekha Project were asked to raise objections in the special camp organized by the Administrator, Subarnarekha Project. Annexure -3 is of 5th December, 1988. Petitioner claims to have made an application on 20th December, 1988 (Annexure -4) and thereafter did not receive any enhancement amount or any such reassessment of the awarded amount was carried out. Lately, his claim has been rejected on the aforesaid ground by the impugned orders.
(3.) Counsel for the Respondent -State has referred to the averment made in the counter affidavit and reiterated the grounds taken in the impugned order. He submits that way back in 1988 itself petitioner has received the compensation amount of house on 5th May, 1989. He did not prefer any application under Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation amount or in the nature of objection to the awarded amount to be determined by the competent court of law. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been duly rejected after consideration by the impugned orders.;