THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS ( DIRECTORATE LAND ACQUISITION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties have been heard in detail.

(2.) It is one of those cases in which two rival contentions advanced on behalf of rival parties compete for acceptance by the court on the basis of almost admitted facts. On behalf of writ petitioner (respondent herein) a simple submission was advanced that the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued after more than a year from the date of the publication made under Sec. 4 of the Act and hence, the acquisition proceeding being Land Acquisition Case No. PLA 1/93-94-115 covering about 3.05 acres of petitioner's land situated at Bihta, District Patna must be quashed. Accepting this contention and repelling the rival submission the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 2624 of 1997 was allowed by the judgment and order under appeal dated 29-9-1997. The rival contention advanced on behalf of the appellant, the State of Bihar is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in favour of the writ petitioner because challenge was made to the execution proceeding after unreasonable delay and before the filing of the writ petition on 17-3-1997 the acquisition proceeding had made considerable progress leading to enquiry and passing of award by Collector under Sec. 11 of the Act. Further submission on behalf of State is that no doubt formal certificate of possession to the requisitioning department was given on 19-3-1997 but admittedly the actual physical possession of the acquired land was already with the concerned department since long and hence on account of making of award and admitted possession, the title in the acquired land including the disputed land already stood vested in the State of Bihar prior to filing of the writ petition; therefore, on account of catena of decisions by the Supreme Court, the Writ Court should not have interfered so as to quash the land acquisition proceeding with a direction to the State Government to hand over vacant possession of the disputed land to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel No.21, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh has submitted on behalf of the appellant, the State of Bihar, that he does not dispute the legal proposition that Sec. 6 of the Act is mandatory and a declaration made beyond the period prescribed under the proviso to Sec. 6 will seriously affect the legality of the declaration and the subsequent proceeding. This stand was in response to case of the writ petitioner that Sec. 6 of the Act is mandatory and a declaration under this provision beyond the permissible time is illegal and void, for which reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2007) 3 SCC 470 . But he has advanced two submissions in support of the appeal. Firstly, it has been submitted that even if a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act is delayed beyond the permissible period, such illegality or even voidness in the declaration may not be of any consequence because the writ court should not interfere in the acquisition proceeding if the title in the acquired land has vested in the State on account of making of award and taking over of possession. In support of this proposition learned Standing Counsel No. 21 has placed reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court particularly, in the following cases : (1) (1991) 4 SCC 1 (State of Punjab and others Vs. Gurudev Singh . (2) AIR 1993 S.C. 852 (Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India) , (3) (1996) 6 SCC 445 (State of Rajasthan Vs. D.R. Laxmi) and (4) (2007) 5 SCC 211 (Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra) .