RAJENDRA PRASAD KESRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have obtained a rule from the Court against the State of Bihar and two of its Officers to show cause why the notices issued under Section 4 of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 (Bihar Act 20 of 1956) (hereinafter called 'the Act') be not quashed and why the respondents be not restrained from interfering with the title and possession of the petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 4236 and 4248 situated in the town of Saharsa, Cause has been shown by learned Standing Counsel No. 2 on behalf of the respondents. A Counter affidavit has also been filed.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that they have built two storeyed pucca buildings in plot Nos. 4236 and 4248 which are their tenancy lands. The impugned notices issued under Section 4 of the Act were received by them on 5-7-1968 informing them that they had occupied the Government premises in an authorised manner. They were, therefore, directed to vacate the Government premises and on their failure further actions were threatened. The petitioners filed their show cause on 23-7-1968 denying that they were in any unauthorised occupation of Government premises. They asserted that the lands over which their buildings stood were their lands and no part of it from which they were sought to be evicted was a part of the Government premises as defined in the Act.

(3.) The gist of the statement in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is that certain portions of the two plots were acquired under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act No. 1 of 1894), awards were made, compensations were paid to the awardees and the petitioners had no right to make any construction over any piece of land which was acquired by the Government under the Central Act 1 of 1894. It is not necessary to give the details of the land acquisition proceedings as mentioned in the counter-affidavit. Suffice it to say, that the claim on behalf of the State is that certain portions of the disputed lands were acquired from the rightful owners before .they were purchased by the ' petitioners from them, and certain portions were acquired from the petitioners themselves. No where, however, it is specifically stated in the Counter-affidavit that possession of the lands acquired had been taken under Section 16 of the Central Act of 1894. The land acquisition proceedings are said to have been completed in one of the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit as it appears in the sense of making the award by the Collector and payment of compensation by him.