A Collector’s reasoned rejection of raiyatikaran and compensation claims prevails over a contrary DCLR order.

Land in Khata No. 3, Plot No. 1585, was acquired for an approach road to the Daudnagar–Nasriganj Bridge.

The petitioners claimed compensation for 46 decimals of acquired land, asserting that raiyatikaran had been allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) on 22 November 2021; compensation had been paid for 39 decimals.

The District Magistrate had earlier rejected the raiyatikaran claim on 17 February 2020.

In related writ proceedings, the High Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the dispute after hearing the parties.

The District Magistrate subsequently rejected the claim by order dated 27 February 2024, which the petitioners challenged in this writ petition.

1. Whether the District Magistrate’s order rejecting the petitioners’ claim for raiyatikaran and compensation for 46 decimals of acquired land was legally infirm

2. Whether the DCLR’s order allowing raiyatikaran could sustain the compensation claim despite the earlier contrary order of the District Magistrate

The State’s Resolution contained in Memo No. 925 dated 11 November 2014 concerned raiyatikaran, including of bakasht land; the judgment records this as part of the petitioner’s case.

The State relied on a Revenue and Land Reforms Department letter dated 17 June 2015 as conferring authority to decide raiyatikaran claims on both the District Magistrate and the DCLR.

The Court’s decision turned on the requirement that the dispute be considered in light of the conflicting orders and relevant materials, pursuant to the earlier High Court direction to the District Magistrate.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.

The DCLR allowed the claim in 2021 without considering the District Magistrate’s earlier rejection of the same claim in 2020.

The resulting conflicting orders were the reason the High Court had directed the District Magistrate to determine the dispute after hearing the parties.

The District Magistrate’s 2024 order considered the earlier orders, the documents submitted by the petitioners and the Circle Officer, and the petitioners’ written submissions.

The Court found that the District Magistrate had considered the relevant aspects and materials, and therefore found no infirmity warranting writ interference.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners without the requested relief.