LAWS(PAT)-2010-7-37

KUMUD KISHORE NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 08, 2010
Kumud Kishore Narayan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A land acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 1977-78 by publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The proceeding concluded in the year 1990 with the preparation of the award. On notice, one Sushil Kumar Sinha filed an affidavit sometime in the year 1991 before the Collector, Darbhanga that he was not the owner of the lands that was the subject matter of the award rather one Kumud Kishore Narayan (petitioner) was in possession of the said lands.

(2.) The Housing Board purported to evict the petitioner from the lands in question through several orders, which were challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 12247 of 2002. The petitioner had also filed an application before the authorities concerned that his lands may be exempted from the land acquisition proceedings. This Court quashed the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the CWJC No. 12247 of 2002 and directed the authorities to consider whether it would be possible to exempt the lands from the proceedings. On perusal of the order of this Court dated 28.03.2005, it appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court that the lands acquisition proceedings had been concluded as far back as in the year 1990 and the award was prepared and steps had been taken to take possession of the lands acquired.

(3.) After the order of remand, the Collector, Darbhanga by Annexure-1 considered the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner including the issue whether the lands would be exempted from the proceedings and came to the conclusion that since the proceedings had closed 13 years back and after notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, there was no possibility of exempting the lands from the said proceedings. The order was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal and subsequently by filing revision. All the three quasi judicial authorities rejected the application of the petitioner.