LAL BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER -affidavit and two supplementary counter -affidavits have been filed by the State. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 had purchased 4.5 decimals of land by registered sale deed dated 14.12.2009. Petitioner No.2 had also purchased 4.5 decimals of land vide registered sale deed dated 01.02.2010. Petitioner No.3 purchased 3.4 decimals of land by a registered sale deed dated 08.02.2010. They all had purchased this land from one Ramjivan Rai. All these three plots purchased by these three petitioners are pertaining to Khata No.127, Plot No.456 at Mouza Daulatpur Deoria in the district of Vaishali. Consequent to their purchase they had got their names mutated in the revenue records (Register -II) of the State on 29.01.2010, 06.03.2010 and 21.04.2010 respectively. Accordingly, they paid the land revenue as well up to the date on 29.01.2010, 06.03.2010 and 21.04.2010 respectively. Receipts are Annexures -5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition. They suddenly were confronted with a notification issued purporting to be a notification under Section -6 of the Land Acquisition Act as published in the newspaper in respect of their lands. They then came to know that avoiding calling for objections, the land was being acquired to build the Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) - As they had no notice nor they were granted opportunity to object, they filed this writ petition on 10.05.2010.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that firstly if one sees the dates of notification Under Sections -4 and 6 of the Act, it would be seen that they are totally incongruous inasmuch as the newspaper publication of the notification in respect of Section -4 notification is dated 02.04.2010, whereas the gazette notification of Section -6 notification is dated 18.03.2010, which cannot be because both Sections -4 and 6 in terms lay down that last date of the publication of the notification in the prescribed manner would be the relevant date for reckoning the date of notification. That being so, Section 6 notification itself becomes invalid having been issued before the date of the last of Section -4 notification. Yet, another important ground raised to challenge the proceeding is that what was the urgency in the matter. It is submitted that it was merely construction of I.T.I. that by itself cannot be a matter wherein emergent proceedings resorted to because the effect of emergent proceeding is negation of a valuable right which the law has conferred in Section -5 -A of the Act upon the citizens to object. This only shows that the action was taken mala fide in law to avoid giving chance to the citizens to object. In this connection, it is also submitted that though almost four years have gone by, though on paper possession has been delivered or taken over by the State, petitioners continued in possession and not a single brick has been laid over on their land. This is not compatible to the stand of need of urgency in acquisition proceedings. In the counter -affidavits, all that is said is reports disclosed that work of about Rs.9 lakhs has been carried out and due to protest of villagers the work has been stopped. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this itself shows that people had serious objections as to acquisition.