LAWS(PAT)-2018-4-189

ABHISHEKH KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 11, 2018
Abhishekh Kumar And Ors. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved writ petitioners for setting aside the judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3575 of 2014 and to allow the reliefs prayed in the writ application. By the impugned judgment the learned Writ Court has refused to set aside the Notification bearing No.841 dated 14.03.2013 issued under Section 4(2) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) and further declaration vide notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 as contained in Annexure-1 and 2 respectively to the writ application.

(2.) From the pleadings available on the record it appears that the basic grievance of the writ petitioners was that while their family have earlier made available some land in revenue Thana No.514, Mauza-Mohamadpur Gautam, area 3.57 acres for rehabilitation purposes to the persons who were affected due to change of channel in the river Ganga and were required to be rehabilitated in terms of the rehabilitation policy of the government prepared in the year 2003, further acquisition of approximately 5.46 acres of land belonging to the petitioners by giving a go-bye to the provision of Section 5A of the Act, 1894 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and such acquisition is adversely affecting their livelihood.

(3.) It is the case of the writ-petitioners that publication of declaration under Section 6 together with notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894 even before obtaining approval from the government level to dispense with the requirement of Section 5A of the Act, 1894 speaks of non-application of mind and the respondent authorities have acted in haste by issuing notification under Section 4(2) read with Section 17(4) as also the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. Referring to a decision rendered by a learned Writ Court in CWJC No.2270 of 2014 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, it has been contended that in almost similar facts and circumstance when the requirement of Section 5A was dispensed with and notification under Section 4 as well as declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 were found to have been signed simultaneously by the Collector, Begusarai, the same was held to be bad and the learned Writ Court found that approval of both the notifications on the same day is not permissible in terms of Section 6 of the Act, 1894.