MRIDULACHANDRA PRANAVKUMAR RAMDASSHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions involve common questions and have, therefore, been beard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment Apart from the submissions urged in C.WJC. Nos. 2929/94, and 2993/94, in C W.J.C. No. 3256/04 an additional submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioners which shall be dealt with separately.

(2.) The facts of the case may be taken from C.W J C. No. 2993/94, as learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the facts are more or less the same and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the pleadings in C W.J.C. No. 2929/94. In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Bihar for the purpose of widening the Braj Kishore Path. The petitioners are some of the owners as well as tenants of the premises situate on the portion of the land sought to be acquired. Initially, in the writ petitions the petitioners had challenged the approval granted by the State Government to the making of the award by order dated 16-3-1994 (Annexure-1). The award made by the Collector (Annexure-2) dated 16-3-1994 was also challenged. Later, the petitioners sought leave 1o amend the writ application with a view to challenge the notification dated 25-8-1990 under Section 4 (1) of the Act as also the notification as published in the Bihar Gazette on 1-9-1990. They also challenged the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 19-9-1991 and the publication, of the said declaration in the Bihar Gazette dated 18-3-1992. These have been annexed as Annexures 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) The facts, not in dispute, may first be noticed. The Cabinet took a decision to acquire the land necessary for widening the Brij Kishore Path. Pursuant to the said decision of the Cabinet, Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar wrote to the Vice Chairman of the Patna Regional Development Authority for necessary action. The aforesaid letter contains the guidelines subject to which the acquisition was to be made. A requisition was sent by the Executive Engineer on 26-4-1990 for acquisition of the land in question. Consequently, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notifying the lands in question for acquisition. The aforesaid notification under Section 4 was published in the Bihar Gazette on 1st September. 1990, and was also published in two local dailies on 17-9-1990, as required by the Act. According to the State, the substance of the notification was also given in the locality on 18-3-1991. This is disputed by the petitioners. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19-9-1991 and the same was published in the Bihar Gazette on 18-3-1992. The declaration was also published in the two local dailies on 14-10-91 and 16-10-91. It is not in dispute that objections were invited, and the same were considered and disposed of under Section 5-A of the Act Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos 3256/94 and 2993/94 submitted that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Firstly, the notification was bad for the reason that it did not record the satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land in question was needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose. The notification (Annexure-7) does not record the satisfaction of the State Government, but only records the satisfaction of the Additional Collector, Patna, which is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Secondly, it was submitted that the substance of the notification was to be given at convenient places in the locality. This was not done and, therefore, the notification was invalid. The notification issued under Section 6 of the Act was challenged on the ground that the same should have been issued within one year from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the same was issued on 18-3-1992, the same was barred by the second proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act. The declaration under Section 6 was also bad for the reason that the substance of the said declaration was not given at convenient places as required by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The award made by the Collector was challenged on the ground of nop-compliance with the provision of Section 11 of the Act. It was submitted that the award could have been made only with the prior approval of the State Government as required by the first proviso to sub-section (iii) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act.