GAITY ARA ROZY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have assailed the entire land acquisition proceedings pedaining to acquisition of land for construction of a bye -pass road in the district of Bhagaipur including the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 5.5.2001 as also the declaration dated 11.5.2001 shown to be published in the district gazette on 20.2.2001. A further prayer has been made that the respondents be restrained for not dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question. Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned Senior. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the entire land acquisition proceedings has lapsed in terms of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act inasmuch as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 20.2.2001 and the period of two years came to be completed on 20.2.2003 and in view of the fact that no award was made in this period of two years, the automatic statutory reflux of time, the proceedings must have come to an end specially when even the possession was not taken in this period of two years.

(3.) THIS aspect of the matter has been dealt with in paragraph nos. 11 and 20 of the counter affidavit where the stand of the respondents is that in a case of emergent acquisition, the operation of Section 11A of the Act will not come into force. The respondents have also strongly relied to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain & Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2517. In the counter affidavit, it has also been explained that the date of declaration on the basis of one page of gazette notification (internal page 10), cannot be treated to be 20.2.2001 which is a typographical error and in fact the date of publication in the gazette is 20.2.2002 and for this purpose, the copy of the entire gazette notification has been placed on record by way of Annexure -C to the counter affidavit in view of Annexure -C, Mr. Ahsan does not dispute that there may be a typographical error in page no. 10 of the gazette notification and therefore he agrees that the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act can be and should be treated as 20.2.2002.