JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2009 along with all consequential actions taken in L.A. Case No. 07/2015-16 including the award dated 25.09.2019 prepared in favour of the private respondent. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.09.2021, wherein authorities have passed the order of recovery of the compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement; be quashed. 3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land situated within Mauza-Paharpur, Khata No. 7 and within Mauza-Karnkol, Khata No. 24 (hereinafter jointly referred to as the scheduled land) was owned by one Bhim Singh. Bhim Singh died issueless. During his lifetime he had not paid the rent with respect to the scheduled land. After the demise of Bhim Singh, one Late Latoo Singh, i.e. the ancestor of the Petitioners paid the arrears of the rent and subsequently scheduled landswere settled in the name of Latoo Singh. This settlement was confirmed in Settlement Case No. 32 of 1933-34 and Settlement Case No. 25 of 1933-34 vide order dated 9.6.1934 and 16.3.1934, respectively. After the demise of Latoo Singh, the name of the grandfather of the petitioners i.e. Chaua Singh was entered in the khatiyan. It has been submitted that after the demise of Latoo Singh, the revenue rent is being realised from his legal heirs i.e. the Petitioners in the case at hand. 4. In the year 2015- 2016, the 3rd Respondent acquired the scheduled land for the purpose of expansion of Deoghar Airport. Notices dated 16.7.2016, were issued in the name of all4 (four) petitioners with respect to the scheduled land. Pursuant to the notices, Petitioners appeared before 3rd Respondent and produced all relevant documents including the copy of the order(s) passed in settlement cases, khatiyan and rent receipts. However, no compensation was released in favour of the Petitioners despite Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 having recognized the right of the Petitioners over the scheduled property and the compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement was released in their favour by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He further submits that after a lapse of more than 3 (three) years, 4th Respondent filed an application before the 3rd Respondent, for award of compensation in his favour. 1 to 3. He further submits that after a lapse of more than 3 (three) years, 4th Respondent filed an application before the 3rd Respondent, for award of compensation in his favour. It has been contended by the Petitioner that the application was made on basis of a forged genealogy table, wherein he claimed to be a descendant of Bhim Singh. The 3rd Respondent, accepting the version of 4th Respondent, to be gospel truth directed the release of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,13,78,510/- (INR One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Only) in his favour vide order dated 25.9.2019. As soon as the Petitioners came to known about the same, an objection was raised by them under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) vide application dated 21.11.2019. However, instead of taking steps as per the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2013 and making a reference to the Authority; 3rd Respondent chose to adjudicate the dispute vide its order dated 14.12.2019, wherein he affirmed his previous order dated 25.9.2019 and passed the order to release the compensation in favour of Respondent No.4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an application before 2nd Respondent; however, the authority denied to entertain their request and asked them to file the application before 3rd Respondent. In the meantime, another notice contained in memo no. 1499 (a) of 15.9.2021 was received by the Petitioners wherein they were called upon to return the compensation paid to them towards rehabilitation and resettlement. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the action of Respondent No. 1 to 3 is patently illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Once the award is prepared, 3rdRespondent is functus officio and he had no authority to review the Award. 3rdRespondent exceeded his jurisdiction by reviewing the Award and passing the impugned orders. 6. Per contra, Mrs. Bakshi Vibha learned Counsel for the State, has submitted that Bhim Singh died leaving behind his daughter namely one Jaho Devi and the Petitioner have failed to prove by way of any document of impeachable character that Jaho Devi is not the daughter of Bhim Singh. 6. Per contra, Mrs. Bakshi Vibha learned Counsel for the State, has submitted that Bhim Singh died leaving behind his daughter namely one Jaho Devi and the Petitioner have failed to prove by way of any document of impeachable character that Jaho Devi is not the daughter of Bhim Singh. She further relied on revenue receipts to show that the scheduled property belongs to the Respondent No. 4 and there is no illegality with the orders as the order in favour of Respondent No. 4 has been based on reports prepared by the competent revenue authority. 7. Learned Counsel for 4th Respondent argued that the land forming subject matter of acquisition was owned by its predecessor and she being the legal heir was entitled to compensation. The Petitioner has made wrong submission before the authority and thereby got the Award in its favour and the compensation award has been wrongly paid to them. The order impugned in the writ petition was passed after due diligence and after consideration of material available on record. In response, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the onus to prove a particular fact is with the person asserting such fact and as such the Respondent No. 4 has to show thathe is the heir of Bhim Singh. He has relied upon Annexure-2 of the writ petition (i.e. the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Settlement Case No. 32 of 1933-34) to show that Bhim Singh had died without any legal heir. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the Respondents have not denied the fact that the land was settled in the favour of the ancestor of the Petitioners after the death of Bhim Singh and as such even if Respondent No. 4 is accepted to be the legal heir of Bhim Singh through her daughter, he cannot claim any right, title and interest over the land in question as the orders passed in the settlement cases have attained finality. 8. Considering the aforesaid submission, the following issues are framed which need to be answered for the purpose of adjudicating the lis in the instant writ petition:- - Whether the 2 nd Respondent can review the award, once the same is prepared? - Whether the 2 nd Respondent is duty bound to make reference of dispute pertaining to inter-se dispute before the authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 ? - Whether the 2 nd Respondent is duty bound to make reference of dispute pertaining to inter-se dispute before the authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 ? 9. This Court has considered the pleadings and submissions of the rival parties and perused relevant documents annexed with the respective affidavits. The issued are discussed as under:- The first issue is with respect to the power of the Collector to review the award. The order dated 09.06.1934 passed in settlement case no. 32 of 1933-34 attached as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and order dated 16.3.1934 passed in settlement case no. 25 of 1933-34 attached as Annexure-3 to this writ petition records a finding that Bhim Singh died without any issue and the scheduled land was settled in the favour of the Latoo Singh (@ Latu Singh). The validity and the genuineness of this order has attained finality and has not been repudiated by the Respondent-State. Another important fact, which is non controversia is that compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement was released in the favour of the Petitioners. 10. Further, the compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement is released in the favour of the affected families in terms of Section 31 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as below:- The Collector shall pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards for each affected family in terms of the entitlements provided in the Second Schedule. …. 11. A bare perusal of the above provision will show that compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement is released on the favour of an affected person after the collector pass an “Award” to such effect. The fact that the amount was released in favour of the Petitioners show that an Award had been prepared in favour of the Petitioners by the State- Respondents. However, upon receipt of an application from 4th Respondent, an order dated 25.9.2019 was passed by 3rd Respondent for the release of compensation in favour of 4th Respondent. 12. This Court fails to understand as to how an Award towards rehabilitation and resettlement can be passed in favour of one person and the Award be prepared for payment of compensation of land be prepared in favour of a different person all together. 12. This Court fails to understand as to how an Award towards rehabilitation and resettlement can be passed in favour of one person and the Award be prepared for payment of compensation of land be prepared in favour of a different person all together. This shows that the order dated 25.9.2019 is nothing but an attempt on part of the Respondent authorities to review the Award prepared in favour of the Petitioner. 13. Section 33 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, pertains to the scope of the corrections, which can be made by the collector, the same is reproduced as under:- The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or local authority: Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter. The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award so corrected to all the persons interested. …. 14. The provision of law quoted above makes it crystal clear that the scope of ‘correction’ is limited to making clerical or arithmetic changes in the award and cannot make material changes such as alter the particulars of the Awardee in exercise to its power thereof. The same would amount of ‘review’ of the Award. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the power of ‘review’ is not an inherent power but has to be derived from the statute and has to be exercised as per the statutory provisions. The judgement rendered in the case of Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India and Ors (2024: HHC:12412) has held that once an Award has been prepared, the collector become functus officio and has no power to review/modify the Award except has under Section 33 of the Act, 2013. 15. The judgement rendered in the case of Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India and Ors (2024: HHC:12412) has held that once an Award has been prepared, the collector become functus officio and has no power to review/modify the Award except has under Section 33 of the Act, 2013. 15. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 25.9.2019 is colorable exercise of power by the authority, exceeding its jurisdiction in so far as it has reviewed the Award. Further, the order dated 15.9.2021, whereby the authorities have issued demand notice to the Petitioner for recovery of the awarded amount is bad in the eye of law being consequential to the order dated 25.9.2019. 16. Now coming to the second issue, which pertains to the powers under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013. 17. Both the parties have relied upon documents to show their right, title and interest over the scheduled land. This dispute is essentially with respect to the ‘the person to whom the compensation is payable’. Whenever a dispute of such nature is raised, it is the duty of the collector to make a reference to the competent ‘authority’ in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013. As Section 64 of the Act, 2013 requires the collector to make such reference; the collector himself is divested of the authority to adjudicate such dispute. Relevant portion of Section 64 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 is reproduced as under for ready reference:- Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested …. 18. The record transpires that vide Annexure- 8 and 11 dated 25.112019 and 24.7.2021, the Petitioners made application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 for making reference before the competent authority for adjudication of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. 19. 18. The record transpires that vide Annexure- 8 and 11 dated 25.112019 and 24.7.2021, the Petitioners made application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 for making reference before the competent authority for adjudication of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. 19. The object of making such reference is that payment to whom the compensation is payable involves complicated question of fact and accordingly such issues cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner and requires taking evidence. The Respondent authorities could not have adjudicated the question pertaining to whom the compensation is payable and was duty bound to make reference to the competent authority. The second issue is answered accordingly. 20. In light of the above discussion, this Court holds that:- (i) The order dated 25.9.2019 amounts to review of the Award. The Respondent authority have no jurisdiction to review an award and as such the same is quashed. (ii) The order dated 14.12.2019 amounts to adjudication of complicated questions of facts pertaining to right, title and interest of the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent. Such adjudication cannot be done by the Respondent- authorities and whenever such dispute arises the Collector is bound to make reference to the authority in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013. Accordingly, it is quashed and set-aside. 21. As the order dated 15.9.2021 is a consequence of the order(s) dated 25.9.2019 and 14.12.2019, the same stands quashed. 22. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the right, title and interest of the parties. The aggrieved party is at liberty to approach the competent authority as is prescribed under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 23. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation. All pending interlocutory application, if any, stand closed.