Claimants seeking land acquisition compensation must exhaust statutory remedies before the District Land Acquisition Officer.

The petitioner, a resident of the UK, claims ownership of 9.1 decimals of land in Patna (Municipal Plot No. 1812) via a 1972 registered sale deed.

He asserts his title was upheld by a Civil Court in 1980.

In 2020, the State issued notifications under Sections 11(1) and 19(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, to acquire 0.0890 acres for the "Ganga Pathway" project.

The petitioner alleges that his residential house and private temple were demolished by authorities on 20.10.2021 without payment of any compensation.

He initially sought relief through the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, but his application was rejected on 22.08.2022.

The State contested the claim, arguing that no residential building was demolished and that the petitioner had not approached the proper statutory authority for compensation.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the acquired land or, in the alternative, fair compensation under the Act of 2013.

2. Whether the petitioner approached the correct forum for the redressal of grievances related to land acquisition compensation.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, specifically the procedures for notification and compensation under Sections 11 and 19.

Administrative principle that grievances regarding land compensation must be adjudicated by the "competent authority," which under the statutory framework is the District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO), rather than a general Grievance Redressal Forum.

The Court observed that the petitioner had mistakenly sought relief from the District Public Grievance Redressal Cell, a forum lacking the specialized jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation under land acquisition laws.

While there were conflicting factual claims regarding the demolition of structures, the Court noted that the petitioner could not provide proof of a formal representation or objection filed specifically before the District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO).

Consequently, the Court found that the merits of the compensation claim and the validity of the title for compensation purposes must first be assessed by the DLAO, who is the statutory authority tasked with passing reasoned awards based on evidence of ownership and dispossession.

The Court held that the petitioner must approach the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, with a fresh representation and title documents.

The DLAO was directed to consider the grievances and pass a reasoned order within two months of receipt of the representation.