DESRATH PRASAD KESHARI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SANTHAL PARGANAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.2.1985 passed by the respondent No. 4, the Additional Collector, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No. 50 of 1981-82 as also for appropriate direction holding that the requisition for acquisition of land appertaining to holding No. 138 situated at Harikishun Sah Lane in the town of Deoghar is not for public purpose as defined in section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act".)

(2.) The fact of the case lies in a very narrow compass.

(3.) The petitioners are the owners of aforementioned holding having been acquired the same by virtue of registered deed of partition. The petitioners' case was that before partition the proportion question was in occupation of tenants against whom several suits have been filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide and personal retirements and the said suits are still pending. A notification under section 4 of the said Act was published purporting to acquire 10 decimals of land appertaining to holding No 138 belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners were served with served with notices for filing their objections by 6.1.1985 by the Additional Collector, Deoghar. On enquiry, the petitioners learnt that the Sub- divisional Officer, Deoghar sent a requisition for acquisition of the said property for the purpose of extension of compound of Sri Baidyanath Temple due to growing rush of pilgrims in Shrawan Mela and other occasions. The requisition was signed by the Magistrate In-charge of the temple, the Sub- divisional Officer, Deoghar and the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal parganas himself. This gave rise to Land Acquisition case No. 50 of 1981-82, copy of the requisition is Annexure 1 to the writ application, in which temple was described as company as defined under Section 3(e) of the said Act. In the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act it was shown that the said property was sought to be acquired for public purpose at the cost of the Government copy whereof in Annexure 2 to the writ application. The petitioners' further case was that the requisition for acquisition was for a company cost of which was borne by Religious Trust Board Department and as such provision contained in Part VII were required to be followed before issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It was further.stated that in absence of any agreement between the company and the appropriate Government the acquisition cannot be regarded as valid. Moreover, procedure provided under section 40 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition was not followed (Companies Rules, 1963) not only that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard in the enquiry rather they were asked to file their objections under Section 5-A of the Act and as such the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is entirely vitiated. The petitioners, further case was pursuant to notice the petitioners filed their objection under section 5-A of the Act stating, inter alia, that purported act for acquisition of property is not properly public purpose, the property in question which is a pacca building is a the only property of the petitioners and that no public can be served by acquiescing the said building. The said objection under Section 5-A of the Act was heard by the Additional Collector who by his order dated 13.2.1985 rejected the objection illegally without holding any enquiry as contemplated under clause (i) of sub- section (2) of section 5-A of the said Act, copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ application.