CHANDRASEKHAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ app'ication under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing a notification dated 2-7-1971 issued in purported exercise of the power under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), conferred on the respondent-Additional Collector, Darbhenga, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ application. By that notification the respondent, Additional Collector, has stated that it appeared to him that it was desirable that 0.17 acre of land within Dalsingsarai notified area should be acquired for construction of the house of Shri Bale Das and Rohit Paswan, who were Harijans. Details of the lands in question have been mentioned in the said notification. In that very notification, it was further stated that any person affected by the said acquisition was at liberty to file an objection in accordance with Section 5-A of the Act.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said notification, an objection under Section 5A of the Act was filed on his behalf. A copy of the said objection is Annexure '2' to the writ application. The respondent, Additional Collector, however, after hearing the petitioner, rejected the said objection by his order dated 14-8-1972. A copy whereof has been annexed and marked as Annexure '4'.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the notification aforesaid is not sanctioned by the provisions of the Act inasmuch as it has been issued to serve the interest of an individual and without there being any public purpose for the same. Aforesaid Balo Das, respondent No. 4, (since deceased) was the father of Rohit Paswan, respondent No. 5. According to petitioner he had several litigations in respect of the land, in question, with the aforesaid respondents. They having failed in those litigations have later managed to get the land, in question, acquired though the Government machinery. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention has drawn our attention to a copy of the aforesaid notification dated 2-7-1971 and the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Additional Collector and has urged that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the proposed acquisition cannot be held to be for any public purpose. At the outset I must say that the notification, in question on face of it, does not conform to the requirement of Section 4 of the Act. At no place in the said notification, it has been stated that the land, in question, is being acquired for any public purpose. I have already pointed out that the notification stated that, for construction of the house of Balo Das, the land, in question, was required. The actual words used are as follows: ..(Verunacular Matter Omitted).. Thereafter the details of the land, in question, have been given. In view of the aforesaid statement made in the notification itself, it has to be held that the land in question is sought to be acquired for an individual i.e. Balo Das. Now two questions arise. Firstly whether an acquisition under the provisions of the Act can be made for an individual and still it can be held to be for a public purpose? Secondly as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case it can be held that the power vested in the Collector under the Act had been utilised in a bona fide manner?