DHEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the notification, published, on 1.10.1983, under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act'), possession of the land, which had been acquired, was taken over, on 8.4.1984, by the Collector, Khagaria. Though possession of the land, so acquired, had been taken over by the Collector, payment of compensation to the extent of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation, as is required to be made under Clause (a) of subsection 3 of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, was not made nor was award, as is required to be made under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, had been made within the prescribed period of two years. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in making payment of the compensation, the appellants herein came to this Court, with a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate directions, which gave rise to CWJC No. 19240 of 2011. By order, dated 31.1.2012, the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned Single Judge having concluded that the land, in question, had not been vested, in accordance with law, in the State, on two grounds, namely, (i) requisite payment of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation had not been made to the persons interested entitled thereto in terms of the provisions of Clause (a) of sub-section 3 of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, and (ii) though Section 11-A of the L.A. Act requires that the Collector shall, in terms of Section 11 of the L.A. Act, make an award, with regard to the payment of compensation, within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration, no award was made within the said prescribed period and, hence, in terms of Section 11-A of the L.A. Act, the land acquisition proceeding stood lapsed inasmuch as Section 11-A of the L.A. Act lays down that if no award is made within the said period, the entire proceedings, for acquisition of land, shall lapse.

(2.) Aggrieved by the disposal of the writ petition in the manner as indicated above, the present appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground that in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, the land, in question, stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, when the Collector, on account of urgency, had, admittedly, taken over the possession of the land for public purpose and, hence, the learned Single Judge has fallen in an error in concluding that the acquisition proceeding had lapsed, because no award, in terms of Section 11 read with Section 11-A of the L.A. had been made within a period of two years from its commencement.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ram Suresh Rai, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. P.N. Shahi, Additional Advocate General No. 10, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.