MUHAMMAD QAMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners claim to be owners of some plots of lands in mauza Hesag, close to Ranchi town. They challenged the validity of the land acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Bihar for acquisition of their lands and the lands of other persons in village Hesag and other neighbouring villages, such as. Kachnartoli, Kalyanpur and Hinoo. The facts have not been fully and correctly stated in the petition, and to ascertain the true facts one has to carefully scrutinise the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar by the Head Clerk of the Land Acquisition Office, Ranchi. On a careful scrutiny of all the papers the salient facts appear to be as follows. In connection with the well known Hatia Project, which was started mainly for the construction of the factories and other buildings of the Heavy Engineering Corporation at Hatia near Ranchi town, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar on a requisition sent by the Industries Department. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act") was issued on the 10th August, 1959 (Annexure A) by which it was stated that lands having an area of 1109.61 acres, situated within the villages of Hinoo, Kalyanpur. Kachnortoli find Hesag, were likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, "for additional land for Hatia township". It was also stated in the notification that the lands were "required to be taken by Government at the Public expense." The notification further stated that, in view of the urgency of the project, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 (4) of the Act, decided that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply. After hearing the objections the State of Bihar sometime in 1960 issued another notification under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure 1) by which they decided to acquire only 948.65 acres of lands in the said four villages. The description of the lands finally decided to be acquired, including their plot numbers, was given in the schedule attached to the notification. Some of these lands lay to the east of the railway line passing through Hatia township. According to the State of Bihar, the arrangement was that the said lands, after acquisition, should be partly handed over to the administrative control of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and the rest should remain under the control of the Director of Rehabilitation, Hatia Project. The Heavy Engineering Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") informed the State Government that the lands acquired lying to the east of the railway line will not be required by them. But the State Government thought that those lands will be required for rehabilitation and re-settlement of those villagers whose lands in Hatia township had been taken away for the said project and who had thus been dispossessed and rendered homeless. Hence the Land Acquisition Department of Ranchi Collectorate continued the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands lying to the east of the railway line also and notices were issued to all persons interested under Section 9 of the Act. The claims of the parties were heard on the 17th February 1964 and 3rd March, 1964. It was also alleged by the State of Bihar that possession was actually taken by virtue of Section 17(1) of the Act, though this is challenged by the petitioners.

(2.) The present dispute is in respect of lands in village Hesag lying adjacent east of the railway line which were stated by the Heavy Engineering Corporation, Hatia, as not being required for the Corporation. The petitioner has not given the exact plot numbers of their lands, though they were given additional opportunity to file a supplementary affidavit for that purpose. But nevertheless for the disposal of this application, it may be assumed that they were owners of some lands in village Hesag lying adjacent east of the railway line.

(3.) As far as I could make out from the statements made by the petitioners' Counsel, the validity of the acquisition is challenged on the following grounds:--