KAMESHWAR NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners approached this Court in this writ petition originally with the allegation that without any authority of law respondent no. 3 and his contractor alongwith his labourers encroached upon part of the land belonging to the petitioners appertaining to C. S. Plot nos. 122 and 123 (Part) under Khata No. 26 of Thana No. 114 situate in Mauza Musepur banwar within the Police Station Kalyanpur in the district of Samastipur and started digging trenches thereon. According to the petitioners on the plot of lands in question the petitioners had a residential building, well, cow sheds, private borings, standing crops of wheat and oil-seeds grown by the petitioners thereon. On 25. 1. 83, finding some contractor of respondent no. 3 alongwith his labourers were digging trenches on war-footing for making construction on the plot of land when the petitioner no. 1 protested he was told by the contractors that the plot of land had been acquired by the respondent no. 3 and at his instance for the purpose of construction of building digging commenced. However because of objections by petitioner no. 1 the contractors stopped digging for that day stating that the work would be resumed with the help of the police next day on the land acquired by the Govep. Nment. The petitioner no. 1 went to the Kalyanpur police Station on the same date seeking help of the police to stop the illegal encroachment and digging of the land of the petitioners, but the Officer-in-charge of kalyanpur Police Station expressed his inability to help the petitioners in view of the fact that respondent no. 2, namely, the Collector, samastipur, had directed him to resist any attempt by the land-holder to obstruct construction work by the contractor. On 26. 1. 1983 petitioner no. 1 alongwith his lawyer tried to meet respondent no. 2 and the Sub-divisional Officer, Samastipur for safeguarding rights of the petitioners and protect their lands from being encroached upon and damaged by contractor engaged by respondent no. 3, but the respondent no. 2 and the said S. D. O. did not at all listen to them. On 27. 1. 1983 respondent no. 2 was out of station and an application addressed to the respondent no. 2 was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Deputy Collector (Incharge Legal section), Samastipur who ordered it to be placed on 1. 2. 1983 before the Collector. According to the petitioners the plots of land in question are their ancestral land and that after partition, the plots of land in question sought to be acquired, fell in the share of the petitioners and they are the owner thereof.

(2.) THE petition was filed on 31. 1. 1983. This Court, on 31. 1. 1983 passed the followiing order :

(3.) AFTER the order was passed, the representation was disposed of by rejecting thereof by the Collector. Thereafter the petitioners filed a supplementary petition on 8. 2. 1983 challenging the acquisition proceeding of the land and the order passed. In the supplementary petition the petitioners have stated that after the enquiry the petitioners for the first time came to know that for the acquisition of the land in question, Land Acquisition Proceeding Case no. 42/1964-65 was registered and a notification dated 26. 12. 1963 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was issued by the collector, Darbhanga for the acquisition of the land in question measuring 4 acres and 36 decimals for the construction of a Dispensary and Staff quarters under the Employees State Insurance scheme. The said proceeding was initiated on the basis of a Govep. Nment order under section 17 (4) of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the Supplementary affidavit it is stated that the petitioners have right, title and possession over the land in question but the copies of the notification under Section 4