IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5701 of 2024 Kalyan Prasad, S/o Ravi Shankar Prasad, R/o Singhrawan, PO & PS- Chauparan, District-Hazaribagh, presently residing at P/1, Pragatinagar, Baridih Basti, Baridih, PO & PS-Sidhgora, District-East Singhbhum … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II ----- 09/27.01.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed in L.A. Case No. 480 of 2021 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Authority, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Hazaribagh, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act, 2013”) whereby the record of L.A. Case No. 23 of 2012-13 has been returned to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh (the respondent no. 2). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Authority, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Hazaribagh, under the Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Authority”. 3. The Authority has refused to entertain the reference made by the respondent no. 2 on the ground that the said reference was made under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, however, 2 W.P.(C). No. 5701 of 2024 the land acquisition proceeding and declaration of award in L.A. Case No. 23 of 2012-13 were made under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, “the Act, 1956”). 4. I find no infirmity in the order dated 29.03.2023 as the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has been designated as “the Authority” under the Act, 2013 to adjudicate the dispute referred to him under Section 64 as well as Section 76 of the Act, 2013. However, despite the fact that the land acquisition proceeding in question was initiated under the provisions of the Act, 1956, the dispute was referred to the said Authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 instead of referring the same under appropriate provision of the Act, 1956. 5. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Authority in L.A. Case No. 480 of 2021. However, keeping in view that the Authority has refused to adjudicate the dispute vide impugned order dated 29.03.2023, the respondent no.2 is directed to refer the dispute under Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956 within 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within whose limit the land in question is situated. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish