RAM PREET SINGH @ MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged proceedings for acquiring their lands under emergent proceedings, for the purposes of establishing boarder out-post for the Sashastra Surakcha Bal (SSB), a Semi- Para Military Force formed for patrolling the boarders of the Country. Their contention is short, their lands are not waste though arable lands, they are valuable property situated next to the Highway. Under the garb of national security, their small portions of agricultural lands are sought to be acquired, when substantial vacant Government land in the very vicinity was available, Government lands were not acquired, rather private marginal farmers having land adjacent to the Highway are to be displaced. This, it is submitted renders the entire exercise bad and violative of the constitutional protection in terms of being arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) State has countered the stand of the petitioner. First, a counter affidavit duly sworn by the Distrist Land Acquisition Officer is filed, which admits that vacant Government lands are available, but, pleaded that they were as reported, not suitable for the requirements of SSB. This raised an important issue. The question whether, they were suitable or not would only arise once these vacant Government lands were shown to the SSB or not, because, SSB could only take a conscious decision to select lands, if various availabilities was made known to it before hand. Therefore, this Court directed an affidavit to be sworn and filed by the Collector of district specifically stating whether Government lands which were lying vacant were shown to the authorities or not because unless such lands were disclosed to the authorities, they cannot be expected to have taken a conscious decision, in the matter. The need and availability was not such that for the purposes of national security the land in vicinity and nearer to the boarder, which was vacant Government land could not be acquired and citizens must part with their lands and be displaced and be satisfied with mere monetary compensation. This balancing of conflicting interest in the opinion of this Court was to brought on record especially when emergent proceeding under Section 17(4) was resorted to excluding right of objection and its consideration under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.