RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners had filed the writ application seeking various relief's like quashing the notification/declaration issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as it relates to Survey Plot Nos. 151 and 152, Mauza-Mithapur, Thana No. 19, P.S.-Phulwari, District-Patna and also for quashing of the various letters issued by the respondents making changes in the alignment of the Mithapur Arm of the Mithapur Road Over-bridge. However, during the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his case to the question of setting aside the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act only on the ground that the invocation of the urgency Clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was not justified.

(2.) The short facts of the case, relevant for the decision of the aforesaid matter, are that on 3.12.1998 a plan for constructing Road Over Bridge (ROB) 'on the northern and southern side of railway level crossing No. 79A at Mithapur was mooted by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. The said plan was approved and sanction accorded in the year 1999. The construction work was entrusted to Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited. M/s. Freyssinet was appointed as consultant for the bridge. The said ROB was to have 5 limbs. The petitioners are concerned only with the Mithapur limb of the Flyover and the notification under Section 4 dated 11.1.2013 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 14.1.2013 in so far as they concern the acquisition of plot Nos. 151 and 152 which measure a total area of 1 acre 36 decimals. Earlier when the general alignment was approved in the year 2003, the Mithapur limb was proposed to be constructed on a Govt. land being Survey Plot No. 177, a public road recorded in the Survey Khatian in the name of the District Board. It is the stand of the petitioners that the said public road was encroached upon by as many as 33 encroachers and when steps were taken to remove them they have put serious resistance and exercised their influence over the respondent-authorities as a result of which in the year 2006 the respondents took a decision to shift the alignment of Mithapur limb from the Ram Market, Mithapur to Gaya crossing towards Narayan Market without assigning any reason for the change of the alignment except that earlier approved two lanes has been decided to be made four lanes. The stand of the petitioners which is not denied in the counter affidavit is that the then District Magistrate, Patna in the year 2010-11 gave his report stating that a large population may be affected by construction of the Flyover as per the changed alignment and requested to arrange the alignment in such a manner so that minimum people are affected. However, the said suggestion was not accepted by the respondents and after a lapse of further time the aforesaid notification/declaration dated 11.1.2013 and 14.1.2013 were published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act and thus taking away the right of the petitioners to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various pleas stating that the action of the respondents is wholly unjustified on the merits of the matter. However, it is his principal submission that the same has been compounded by not even giving an opportunity to the petitioners to object under Section 5A of the Act to the land acquisition proceedings for which they have substantial grounds as mentioned in different paragraphs of the writ application. Apart from the same, it is contended that there was absolutely no occasion for invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act considering that the project proposal was initiated in the year 1998 and even after its approval. in the year 2003 two other changes in the general alignment design was suggested in the month of January, 2006 and finally approved in the year 2007, whereas the notification thereafter has been issued in the year 2013 and thus, according to learned counsel, there was no occasion for the respondents to have invoked the urgency clause taking away the valuable rights of the petitioners to object. It is submitted that in such objection the petitioners could have shown that the acquisition process undertaken on their lands was contrary to the principles of land acquisition as laid down in various decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court.