MULCHAND CHANDAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who constitute a firm registered by the name M/s. Hanuman Brick Works. Chaibassa, by this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India pray for quashing the notifications, Annexures 2. 2/1 and 2/2, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and directing respondent No. 1, the State of Bihar, not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' firm in respect of plots Nos. 107, 247, 271 to 286, 298, 299, 310 and 311 in village Barapahar within Jadugora police station in the district of Singhbhum in pursuance of the said notifications. They further pray for quashing of the order of the Commissioner of Mines and Geology, respondent No. 2, dated 14th of March, 1973 (Annexure 5) vacating the stay in respect of plots Nos. 107, 298 and 299 and the entire proceedings pending before him upon the application of M/s. Ram Prasad Ram Madan Ram, respondent No. 4. They also seek issuance of directions from the Court to the respondents forbearing them from interfering with the possession of the petitioners' firm over the aforesaid lands and forbearing M/s. Hindusthan Copper Ltd., respondent No. 5, from interfering with the possession of the petitioners' firm and carrying on their business of minor mineral on the aforesaid areas in respect of manufacture of bricks. It may be stated here that during the pendency of the writ application, the order of vacating the stay dated 14th of March, 1973 has been set aside by the appellate authority and in that view of the matter the prayer for quashing that order was not pressed at the time of hearing of the application. There was also a petition for amendment which was mostly concerned with the aforesaid prayer for quashing the order (annexure 5) and that too has not been pressed.

(2.) The relevant facts which form the basis for the aforesaid prayers of the petitioners which were pressed at the time of the hearing of the application as stated by them are as follows. The petitioners' firm have acquired title to and rights of possession over the aforesaid plots either by lease from the tenants Haripada Gorh and Kalipada Gorh, sons of Madan Gorh, or permit from the Government in respect of waste lands. Haripada Gorh and Kalipada Gorh executed a registered lease (annexure 1) in their favour on the 4th of November, 1067. Since then the petitioners' firm have been in peaceful possession of the aforesaid lands in pursuance of that deed and other documents obtained from the tenants thereof and carrying on works of bricks manufacturing over those lands. They also applied on 9th of November. 1967 for lease under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, in respect of plots Nos. 247. 272, 279 to 286, 310 and 311 for the purposes of digging clay as a minor mineral. During the pendency of those applications the petitioners' firm were carrying on the works of manufacturing bricks by permits obtained from time to time from the mining authorities. Meanwhile on 26th of April, 1971, respondent No. 1, issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of several plots including some of the plots upon which the petitioners' firm had been carrying on their business. NO notice of the notification was issued to the petitioners' firm nor they were aware of any such notice. The notification was not published as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act (Bihar Act 11 of 1961). No notice was served upon the petitioners' firm although the Land Acquisition Officers, the local officers and the mining officers knew about the right of the petitioners' firm. Subsequently two declarations (Annexures 2/1 and 2/2) under Section 6 of the Act were published. The petitioners came to know of the notifications and declarations for acquisition only after the Deputy Survey Superintendent of Rakha Copper Project of respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to the mining authorities on the 23rd of March, 1972. informing them of the acquisition after the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, had granted a lease to the petitioners' firm on 19th of March, 1972, in respect of the plots covering an area of 8.25 acres. The petitioners' firm thereupon made enquiries and obtained copies of the aforesaid notifications. They claim that the acquisition was invalid in law.

(3.) Three counter-affidavits have been filed, one by respondent No. 1, another by respondent No. 4 and the third by respondent No. 5. The substance of averments made by them in their counter-affidavits is that the notifications concerning acquisitions were duly published as required by law, the acquisition was legal and valid and the writ application of the petitioners was not maintainable. It has further been averred that the acquisition was for the purposes of the Union Government and respondent No. 1 made the acquisition under powers delegated to it by the Union Government vide Annexure 'A' of its counter-affidavit. If necessary, I will refer to the averments of the respondents iu their counter-affidavits in greater detail while: dealing with various arguments advanced in the case by learned Counsel for the parties.