HARIHAR MANDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 10th December, 1955, dismissing the plaintiff's suit (Title suit No. 50 of 1954) instituted against the State of Bihar and Sinha Homeo Medical College and Hospital for a declaration that the land acquisition proceeding with respect to 1 bigha 12 katnas 9 dhurs and odd land was illegal and void.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the institution of the suit are the following: Dr. Jadubir Sinha is a Homeopathic practitioner having his house in Mahana Bakarganj or Darbghanga town. There is a Homeopathic College and hospital known as Sinha Homeo College and hospital located in a part of the residential house of Dr. Sinha or which he happens to be the Principal. The college and hospital happed to be registered institution under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 For the purpose of providing suitable accommodation to the College, Dr. Sinha Applied in 1946, to Government through the Collector of Darbhanga for the acquisiton of 1 bigha 12 lathas 9 dhurs and 4 dhurkrs equivalent to 1.44acres of land near his house as described in the plaint. A land acquisiton proceeding No. 8 of 1946/47 was started and after a detailed and prolonged enquiry by the Land Acquisiton Officer, the Collector, the Commissioner and the State Government and after complying with the provision of Section 40 of the Land Acquisiton Act, the Government in the Revenue Department, issued a notification dated the 12th of September, 1949, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Bhar Gazette dated the 21st of September, 1949, calling for objections under Section 5A by 14th of October, 1949. No objection was filed within the time prescribed. Thereafter a draft agreement under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act was sent to the Government for publication. In the meantime, Shri Harihar Mander, the plaintiff of the present suit (since dead) purchased a substantial portion of the land under acquisition and filed an objection before the Collector in August, 1951, which was rejected. He moved the Commissioner of the Tirhut Division against the order of the Collector. Being unsuccessful there, he moved the Government. Although an enquiry under Section 40 had already been made and after being a satisfied about the existence of 'public purpose' the notification under Section 4 had been issued, the Government, on his objection, presumably for further assurance, directed the District Magistrate of Darbhanga to hold an enquiry again under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of ascertaining if the land was required for a 'public purpose'. The Collector made an enquiry afresh and reported to Government through the Commissioner that the acquisition in question would be useful to the public. Thereafter, the draft agreement under Section 41 of the Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on 24th of June, 1953, and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on the 2nd of September, 1953. Detailed measurements were made, khesra was prepared as required under Section 8 of the Act and notices to persons interested regarding compensation were issued under Section 9. Shri Harihar Mander filed an objection regarding compensation. Dr. Sinha also filed objection. After hearing the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence the Collector gave an award under Section 11 of the Act. On 20th of June, 1954, possession was also delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Principal of the Sinha Homeopathic College. Notices under Section 12(2) were issued to the person interested on the same date. (SIC) land in question was not for any public purpose', but that it was with a view to benent a private individual, Dr. (sic) Sinha, by improving the site of his house and by helping him in his business. The other ground pleaded by him was that the market value of the land in question was about Rs. 1,21,000/- and not only Rs. 5,104/- as had been assed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He prayed for issue of an injunction against the defendant first party restraining it from proceeding with the land acquisition proceeding until the disposal of the suit. The injunction matter was heard on the 21st of June, 1954, when the learned Subordinate Judge Shri R.P. Mukherji was informed that the proceeding had almost concluded inasmuch as possession had already been delivered to defendant No. 2 on the preceeding day, i.e. 20-6-54. The Subordinate Judge then granted a limited injunction restraining the defendant second party from raising any structure on the land in question. Thereafter, both the defendants filed separate written statements and contested the suit on identical pleas. Besides challenging the maintainability of the suit and pleading estoppel and limitation, they denied plaintiffs allegation regarding the defects and irregularities in the land acquisition proceeding. They averred that the land in question had been acquired after observing all the formalities and after fully complying with the relevant provisions of the Act. They also denied the fraudulent suppression of notices and asserted that the lands in question had been acquired after observing all the formalities and after fully complying with the relevant provisions of the Act. They also denied the fraudulent suppression of notices and asserted that the lands in question had been, properly valued.

(3.) Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective picas and the learned Subordinate Judge, after considering all the materials on the record, came to the conclusion that the entire land acquisition proceeding, had been validity conducted after due service of notices and after complying with all the relevant provisions of the law. He accordingly held that the plaintiff had no valid on use of action against the defendants and dismissed the suit with costs.