JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire certificate proceedings in Certificate Case No. 12/13-14; and for quashing the notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PDR Act’) whereby the petitioner has been called upon to deposit and refund an amount of Rs. 30,88,931/- by way of the award money received by him against acquisition of land appertaining to part of plot no. 189 of Khata No. 154 situated at Mauza-Matiyara Tok measuring 2.964 decimal of land; and for a direction to the Collector not to require the petitioner to refund the said amount and to lift the ban created over the petitioner’s Bank account. 3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that his father was one of six brothers including Nageshwar Prasad Gupta. Some lands were purchased in the name of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta by his elder brother Ram Padarath Sah for construction of houses thereon, the work of which was being conducted by the petitioner and his uncle Nageshwar Prasad Gupta. Some of these lands came to be acquired in due course and in this regard Award Nos. 28/A and 88 for acquisition of 3.464 decimals of land of Plot No. 189 was prepared for a total compensation of Rs. 2,37,968/- + 28,50,968/- aggregating to Rs. 30,88,568/-. It is claimed that Nageshwar Prasad Gupta gave his consent in writing for the petitioner to lift the entire award money and accordingly the petitioner took the entire award money and deposited the same in his Bank account, to which Nageshwar Prasad Gupta did not also raise any objection. Thereafter, Nageshwar Prasad Gupta died on 12.04.2013 upon which his widow Priya Ranjan Panjiar Gupta (respondent no. 4) made an application to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali for requiring the petitioner to refund the said amount to her. After hearing the petitioner, the District Land Acquisition Officer directed the petitioner by his letter dated 27.05.2013 to refund the entire amount within 30 days, failing which appropriate legal steps including initiation of certificate proceeding would be taken against him. In view of the petitioner having declined to refund the amount, the instant certificate proceeding has been initiated against him. 4. Mr. In view of the petitioner having declined to refund the amount, the instant certificate proceeding has been initiated against him. 4. Mr. K.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire certificate proceeding for recovery of the award money from the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that once the award money had been paid to the petitioner, the only recourse for the District Land Acquisition Officer was to make a reference of the dispute to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the LA Act’ for brevity), but instead of doing so, a proceeding for recovery of the award amount under the PDR Act has been initiated. It is submitted that the amount in question sought to be recovered is not a “Public Demand” within the meaning of Section 3(6) of the PDR Act and hence the same has no application and the impugned action for recovery there under is wholly without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thakur Satya Narain Singh & Ors. vs. Shree Kamakshya Narain Singh & Ors., 1955 BLJR 717 for the proposition that the District Land Acquisition Officer who had himself made the award could not in law or in equity ask the successful party to refund the money already paid to him in pursuance of the award. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State appears and opposes the writ petition. He refers to the counter affidavit to submit that the consent of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta for receiving the money was obtained by the petitioner through a forged and fabricated document. It is stated that Nageshwar Prasad Gupta was bedridden at the time and was not capable of understanding the nature of the document and was deceived by the petitioner who has committed fraud upon his uncle. It is submitted by him that had the property in question been joint property, the petitioner would have made an objection under Section 18 of the LA Act for reference of the dispute to the Court but no such application was made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the amount fraudulently received by the petitioner is liable to be refunded to the concerned authority to enable a decision with regard to the person lawfully entitled to receive the amount. It is submitted that the amount fraudulently received by the petitioner is liable to be refunded to the concerned authority to enable a decision with regard to the person lawfully entitled to receive the amount. Such fraudulent act by the petitioner has led to institution of a criminal case in Complaint Case No. C2-158/2013 and Trial No. 369 of 2014 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur in which cognizance has already been taken. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4, Priya Ranjan Panjiar Gupta who is the widow of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta, submits that the subject certificate proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the award amount. It is submitted that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the fact that the Certificate Officer has already passed a final order dated 25.07.2014 rejecting the petitioner’s objection petition under Section 9 of the PDR Act and directed the petitioner to deposit the award amount and has also issued a bailable warrant against the petitioner with directions to the Police Officer to implement the order. It is submitted that no further proceeding in the certificate case is pending and hence the writ petition itself has become infructuous. It is stated that in view of Partition Suit No. 398 of 1998, the disputed land was not joint property and hence not included in Schedule-1 of the said suit. It has specifically been denied that Ram Padarath Sah, elder brother of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta had ever purchased the land in favour of the latter for construction of house, rather it was the self required property of Nageshwar Prasad been accepted in the written statement of the petitioner’s father in the partition suit. So also it has been denied that the petitioner had any role in the management and construction of the house in question. It is further stated that Nageshwar Prasad Gupta had no knowledge about the payment of the compensation amount in respect of his acquired land to the petitioner. He subsequently became ill and was under treatment in Kurji Hospital, Patna and thereafter at Medanta Hospital, Delhi before his death on 11.04.2013. After the death of her husband, the respondent no. 4 requested the District Land Acquisition Officer for making payment of compensation in respect of the acquired land. He subsequently became ill and was under treatment in Kurji Hospital, Patna and thereafter at Medanta Hospital, Delhi before his death on 11.04.2013. After the death of her husband, the respondent no. 4 requested the District Land Acquisition Officer for making payment of compensation in respect of the acquired land. It is stated that Nageshwar Prasad Gupta never gave consent to the petitioner for lifting the award amount as he had no knowledge about the payment of the compensation being made. The petitioner has fraudulently received the entire amount on the basis of a forged and fabricated document. It is pointed out that the District Land Acquisition Officer had initiated Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2013 in which the petitioner was impleaded as the opposite party and after hearing both parties, namely the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner, the District Land Acquisition Officer directed the petitioner to refund the said award money. It is submitted that the petitioner has received the compensation amount on the basis of bond paper, consent letter, affidavit, photographs and photo identity card of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta and not on the ground of his title and possession of the acquired land which was the self owned property of the husband of the respondent no. 4. As such, there is no dispute with regard to apportionment of the award money and the question of any reference to the Court under Section 30 of the LA Act could not arise. 7. Having heard the parties and on a careful consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. At the outset itself, it may noted that the respondent no. 4 stated that the petitioner’s objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act had been disposed of and final order dated 25.07.2014 had been passed by the Certificate Officer thereby bringing the certificate proceedings to a conclusion, but this fact had been suppressed by the petitioner. It is only subsequently by filing a supplementary affidavit that the said order dated 25.07.2014 has been brought on record by the petitioner which is said to have not been filed earlier inadvertently. It is only subsequently by filing a supplementary affidavit that the said order dated 25.07.2014 has been brought on record by the petitioner which is said to have not been filed earlier inadvertently. While there is a remedy of appeal against the order of the Certificate Officer disposing of the petitioner’s objection filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act, such statutory remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner and instead he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. To that extent, the statement made in paragraph-20 of the writ petition that the petitioner had no efficacious alternative remedy is clearly not correct. It may also be noted that the District Land Acquisition Officer has filed Complaint Case No. C2-158/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur after finding that the acquired land was the self owned property of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta and the award money had been received by the petitioner by committing fraud and by using forged and fabricated document, in which cognizance has also been taken. 8. The petitioner’s stand that the impugned order of the District Land Acquisition Officer directing refund of award amount is arbitrary and without jurisdiction, also does not have force as rightly pointed out by the respondent no. 4. This is a case where the petitioner has allegedly obtained the award money through fraudulent means using forged and fabricated document of Nageshwar Prasad Gupta rather than on the basis of any title over the acquired land. It therefore cannot be said that the matter involves a dispute relating to apportionment of the award money between different claimants as may require the matter to be referred to the Court in terms of Section 30 of the LA Act, more so when the petitioner is alleged to have obtained the award money through fraudulent means using forged and fabricated documents. Reliance on the decision in Thakur Satya Narain Singh’s case (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as the facts involved in that case are completely distinguishable from the present one. The said case was one where the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner therein had been found to be genuine and made with the consent of the Raja Bahadur. The said case was one where the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner therein had been found to be genuine and made with the consent of the Raja Bahadur. It was a case where an application had been made under Section 18 of the LA Act on behalf of the opposite party for referring the matter in dispute to the District Judge which was however beyond time and in the meanwhile payments had been made to the claimants including the petitioner. In the present case, none of the claimants, much less the petitioner, has been shown to have filed any application under Section 18 of the LA Act for referring the dispute to the District Judge. The order dated 22.07.2013 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2013 directing, in the event that the petitioner failed to deposit the received amount, certificate case be filed against him for recovery, appears to have attained finality. The petitioner has not brought any material on record to show that he has filed any appeal or revision against the said order. 9. The petitioner does not appear to have challenged the final order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Certificate Officer disposing of his objection petition filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act and as such the said order has also attained finality. 10. The petitioner has also not disputed having submitted his bond paper with a categorical undertaking, assuming personal liability for refund of the award amount in a single instalment with interest in case of any claim being made or if the payment to the petitioner was found to have been made wrongfully or through fraud or erroneously, failing which he would be liable for legal action by way of criminal case and recovery under the PDR Act. The undertaking itself is in the form of an agreement having been signed both by the petitioner as well as by the District Land Acquisition Officer before being submitted in connection with payment of the award money. The undertaking itself is in the form of an agreement having been signed both by the petitioner as well as by the District Land Acquisition Officer before being submitted in connection with payment of the award money. This Court is therefore of the view that such agreement fulfills the requirement of Article 9 of Schedule-1 of the PDR Act as being “money payable to a servant of the Government or any local authority, in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument, that it shall be recoverable as a public demand”. The amount is therefore in the nature of a “public demand” within the meaning of Section 3(6) of the PDR Act and accordingly recoverable under the provisions thereof through the instant certificate proceedings. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed. 12. I.A. No. 387 of 2018 filed for stay of further proceeding in Certificate Case No. 12 of 2013-14 consequently also stands dismissed.