RISHIKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking exception to an order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10018 of 2016, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) Seeking restoration of possession of land said to have been acquired in Land Acquisition Case No.78 of 1958-59 and Land Acquisition Case No.63 of 1959-60 and invoking the provisions of Section 22(4) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the present appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act as the monetary benefit accruing due to award has not been paid and the possession of the land has been not been taken, the learned Writ Court should have allowed the writ petition and granted relief and in support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Missirimal Solanki and others, [(2014) 3 SCC 183]; Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India and Ors. [2015 (2) PLJR 302 (SC)]; and Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh and Ors. [2016 (3) PLJR 93 (SC)] to say that ingredients necessary for applicability of Section 24 of the Act are not fulfilled in the present case.

(3.) Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners taking us through various documents on record tried to indicate that physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken and as there is failure of payment of compensation as awarded, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act can be invoked.