LAWS(SC)-1994-3-79

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

Decided On March 04, 1994
STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
V/S
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr N. S. Bisht, advocate takes notice for the respondent.

(2.) Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.

(3.) It is stated in the order of the Additional Collector, Patna, dated 6/4/1993 that the Office of the Superintending Engineer has been shifted from Bihta to maner and materials were being removed from that place. Mr Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General has stated that the Office of the engineering Division is still operating in that place and temporary structures have not been dismantled as yet and articles were also not shifted. We cannot, however, go into that disputed question of fact asserted by either side. Suffice to state that by operation of Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) the occupation would be for a period of three years for temporary purpose and on expiry thereof the material is to beremoved and possession should be surrendered to the owner. It is true as contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the power can be exercised from time to time so long as the public purpose serves, but the fact remains that no such action was taken. Therefore, the direction issued by the high court for removal of the material and to deliver possession thereof to the respondent-owner cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. However, if the public purpose subsists, the order of the High court does not stand in the way of the government to take appropriate action under Section 4 (1 of the Act. It is, in fact, stated that such a notification was issued on 1/1/1993, but there are some defects to give effect to it. Four weeks' time from today is granted to the appellants to take such steps as are available at law and for a period of four weeks from today there shall be a direction not to dispossess the appellants. If no action is taken in the meanwhile, on expiry of four weeks from today, the respondent is at liberty to have the direction issued by the High court in the impugned order enforced according to law.