SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present application, the three petitioners have challenged the acquisition of land for constructing an approach road connecting a village the population whereof is predominantly of a minority community. The part of the road is passing through their lands. State filed its counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE land in question is situated at Anchal -Sahebganj, Mouza -Nawada in the district of Muzaffarpur. It appears that in 2002. a recommendation was made by the then Mukhiya to the Circle Officer pointing out the necessity of an approach road to connect the village in question to the main road in absence whereof people were having lot of difficulty. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the recommendation was sent to the State Government and the State Government asked the District Collector to proceed with planning and acquiring land for the purposes of the said approach road pursuant whereto notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in September, 2003 wherein it was stated that the persons interested or effected may file their objections within thirty days in terms of Sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector. It is not disputed that notices were also issued individually to khatiyani raiyats in this regard. It appears, pursuant to the notification issued, petitioners filed their objection on 22.9.2003. Pursuant to notices issued again to the khatiyani raiyats, they again filed objections on 27..1.2004 before the Collector of the district. The Collector, without hearing the petitioners or any further notice of hearing given to them, forwarded the objection to the Circle Officer to make a report after local enquiry. It appears the Circle Officer made a local enquiry and submitted his report dated 15.7.2004 to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur which has been appended as Annexure -B to the counter affidavit. It is not disputed that the report having been submitted, no further steps were taken to hear the petitioners or disclose the report to the petitioners and it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Collector rejected the objections by his order dated 29.7.2004. As no order of the Collector was annexed to the counter affidavit, this Court directed the State to produce the same on a supplementary counter affidavit which has now been filed.

(3.) THE submission on behalf of the petitioners is that once the Government decides to acquire land under normal procedure then it has to hear and fairly decide the objections as contemplated under Sec. 5A of the Act. Failure to consider objections validly would render the acquisition proceedings bad inasmuch as without a fair consideration of objection under Sec. 5 no notification under Sec. 6 could have been issued. Therefore, if hearing of objection has not been legally done, the Sec. 6 notification would fall. If Sec. 6 notification falls then automatically Sec. 4 notification would fall as the same has to be followed by notification under Sec. 6 within a specified time. The provisions are mandatory. The consequence would be that the entire acquisition proceedings would stand terminated or dissolved.