PATNA, India, Oct. 8 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 8:

1. The petitioner has filed the Writ application for the following reliefs:

"For issuance of appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions for quashing final 31.01.2017 passed in Certificate case No. 1/2013- 2014 by the Certificate Officer, Gaya whereby and whereunder the Certificate Officer rejected the objection petition of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the documents related the land in question with the order of the learned Civil Judge-VII, Gaya and further order to deposit the certificate amount within a week whereas the petitioner submitted the relevant documents but the learned Certificate Officer ignoring the same passed the impugned order.

Petitioner further prays for any other relief/ reliefs, for which petitioner found entitled in the eye of law and in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The brief facts as culled out of the petition are that the petitioner is the daughter-inlaw of Late Yadu Singh, whose ancestral property fell into her share under a family arrangement. The land in question i.e., part of plot no. 3084 (area 46 decimals out of total 90 decimals), was acquired for the construction of the Jagatpur Canal, and the petitioner received compensation of Rs. 2,18,093/- on 25.08.2011. It is submitted that no co-parcener objected for the compensation, and land possession certificate was also issued in her favor after verification by authorities. Further, the petitioner's entitlement was also confirmed by a partition decree in Title Suit No. 300/04 on 14.12.2012, with final Takhtabandi prepared on 31.08.2014 and decree was dated 05.11.2016.

3.It is also submitted that despite this, the Special Land Acquisition Officer initiated certificate proceedings for recovery of the said compensation amount, based on the objection filed by a private party. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court by filing CWJC No. 645 of 2015, and this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 9 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections and appeared through her advocate, but the Certificate Officer failed to consider the same and mechanically issued a warrant of arrest without proper consideration.

4.The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it was passed mechanically without considering the decree and other documents which conclusively established the petitioner's ownership and entitlement for compensation amount.

5.It is submitted that the recovery proceeding is wholly unjustified in view of the final decree and possession certificates which have attained finality.

6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the Certificate Officer's refusal to consider these facts is highly arbitrary and contrary to law.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzgxMCMyMDE3IzEjTg==-LpfXWuBstn4=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.