YOGENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing of the notification no. 17/2010/DLA/PATNA 1227 dated 21.07.2010 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act) by which 20.99 acres of land appertaining to thana no. 104, village Neora, district Patna is sought to be acquired by the State Government for setting up Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic and Persian University (hereinafter referred to as ,,the University). The petitioners also seek to quash the order under Section 6 of the Act issued on 22.07.2010.

(2.) THIS writ application has been filed in the representative capacity by the six petitioners, who are resident of village Neora and whose lands are sought to be acquired by the State Government for the purposes of establishing the University. It is said that 120 persons are affected by the said acquisition. The petitioners are also challenging the letter dated 28.01.2010 by which the acquisition has been invoked under the emergency provisions as contained in Section 17 of the Act.

(3.) ON perusal of the counter affidavit of the State, it appears that as per the instructions of the Government, two camps were held on 07.08.2010 and 09.08.2010 in the village Neora inviting and intimating the land holders for filing affidavits for voluntarily giving up the lands in order to get the benefit of the circular of the State granting 60 per cent solatium, instead of 30 per cent solatium, which is payable under the Act. It appears that at that stage, the land holders did not come forward to raise their objections or meet the authorities concerned. Nevertheless, this is one aspect of the matter which indicates that the villagers were aware of the fact that there was to be a acquisition of lands in their village. Apparently, as stated in paragraph 16 of the writ application, some of the villagers met the Chief Minister on 02.07.2010 and filed a representation before him, which is contained in Annexure-8 series, which also indicates that at least 60 out of 120 persons had notice of the fact that the lands were to be acquired in the village Neora. In my opinion, they could have only filed the representation if they were apprised of the fact, that acquisition was to take place because of the steps taken by the State Authorities such as conducting a survey, enquiry etc. with respect to the lands to be acquired. However, considering the entire pleadings made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State, this Court finds that although there were service of notice on 35 persons, it would be incumbent upon the State Government to examine the representations of all such persons who claim that their lands are going to be acquire.