SHRI PRAJAPATI JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance With respect to the order dated 12.10.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9130 of 1995, whereby acquisition of the land of the Petitioners has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Way back in the year 1972, the State Government decided to acquire 7.79 acres of land for construction of the block office and circle office at Surajgarha, in the then combined district of Munger on emergency basis under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Petitioners challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 310 of 1972 and C.W.J.C. No. 312 of 1972, which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 22.8.1975, and it was held that it was not open to the State Government in the facts and circumstances of that case to acquire the lands under Section 17(4) of the Act. Thereafter the State Government took steps to acquire the land in the usual course, and reduced the area of acquisition to 2.70 acres. The erstwhile combined district of Munger was divided into four districts, and the lands in question are now situate in the district of Lakhisarai. In the year 1994, during course of land acquisition proceeding, the Block Development Officer, Surajgarha, commenced construction of the boundary wall on the land in question. On the protest of the Petitioners, the Sub-divisional Officer, Lakhisarai, stayed further construction on the land in question. However, the boundary wall was completed and the Petitioners were allowed passage for ingress and egress. The Petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceeding by preferring the present C.W.J.C. No. 9130 of 1995, inter alia, on the ground that the authorities have forcibly taken possession of the lands without publication of the award in terms of Section 16 of the Act, and also on the ground that they themselves are poor, land-less persons and would be left with no land after acquisition of their land. The writ petition was dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2009, in the absence of learned Counsel for the Petitioners. It is further relevant to state that the writ petition was filed on 3.11.1995, and the matter was laid before the learned Single Judge on various occasions. In spite of clear orders of the Bench, the State Government did not file counter affidavit in the writ proceedings.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, as well as the order of the learned Single Judge, on various grounds. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and the present appeal.