SYED MOHD ZAKARIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (amended by the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1960) inflexibly mandates that the notification under Sub-Sec. (1) thereof declaring that it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector that the land is needed for the public purpose, must issue under the signature or hand and seal of either of the said two authorities alone - is the core question necessitating the reference of this Letters Patent Appeal to the Full Bench. Pointedly at issue is the correctness of the observations in M/s. Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. v. Addl. Collector, Hazaribagh, AIR 1971 Pat 167.

(2.) Herein the land was sought to be acquired for the admitted public purpose of the expansion of the Government hospital at Sasaram. The notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended by the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1956) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was issued by the Additional Collectors, Sasaram, and published in the District Gazette on 24th/31st Mar. 1976. This was followed by the requisite notification under S.6 of the Act by the same authority. In challenging the acquisition proceeding by way of a writ petition, the present appellant had taken the stand that his residential house is located in municipal survey plot No. 208 under Ward No. 3 of the Sasaram Municipality and adjoining the same there are three permanent mazars and two katcha graves which are used for the religious rituals by the Muslim community. It was averred that Urs and other cultural programmes are held over this land and the appellant has also constructed six shops which were let out to the tenants and the income derived therefrom was utilised exclusively for the purpose of religious and cultural causes of the Muslim community. After notice of the acquisition proceedings was served on the appellant, he submitted his objection under S.5A of the Act alleging that the area in question had already been exempted from acquisition as it is used for religious and cultural purposes of both the Hindu and Muslim communities. Apparently the petitioner's (appellant's) objections were rejected and notices of eviction against his tenants and further requiring him to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 480/- per katha were issued to the petitioner (appellant). Aggrieved thereby the writ petition was preferred.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it was categorically stated that the land had been taken possession of by the Collector way back on 27th Aug. 1980 under S.16 of the Act. Further, it is the stand that all formalities were duly observed and the notification under S.6 was published thereafter in the Rohtas District Gazette on 1st Sept. 1976. It has also been stated that there is only one pucca grave in the area covering 20 decimals and the same has been scrupulously excluded from the acquisition. The two alleged kutcha graves are said to be fictitious and false and indeed have been deliberately manufactured and manipulated for the purpose of this case. It was also stated that the pucca mazar is situated on survey plot No. 286 and not on plot No. 208 as claimed.