ATMA RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case relates to land acquisition proceeding being PLA Case No. 24/91 (LA Case No.2/96-97) DLA Patna Case No. 18/98). The acquisition proceeding as well as the Notification declarations, orders and awards etc., published, issued, prepared and passed in the said case as contained in Annexures-1 to 6, have been challenged by the the petitioners in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief fact of the case as pleaded show that the acquisition of land was started in pursuance of a scheme known as "widening of Chiraiyatand Overbridge and approach road at Patna". On the requisition made on 22nd August, 1991 by the PWD, New Capital Division, Patna, PLA Case No. 24/91 was initiated. Notification under Section 4(1) was published in the District Gazette on 6th October, 1994 and then in two newspapers on 28th November, 1994. Notices under Section 4(1) were served on landholders by 10th April, 1995 and in the notification and notice, specific purpose was mentioned, as 'widening of Chiraiyatand Overbridge'. The landholders filed their objections under Section 5(1) of the Act before the Collector between 1994-95 whereinafter authority concerned filed report. Most of the objections under Section 5(1) were rejected on 5th January, 1996 except some, which were in respect of Temples and Mosques. In between January and February, 1996, a number of landholders filed objections under Section 5-A(2), some before Minister l/C and others before the Commissioner. All such petitions were placed before the Minister l/C, in August, 1996. In the meantime, declaration under Section 6 was made by the District Land Acquisition Officer on 2nd March, 1996 and notices under Section 6 were published in two local newspapers on 21st March, 1996. Individual notices of declaration under Section 6 were sent to the landholders by 31st of July, 1996.

(3.) According to the petitioners, after the objection made in LA Case No.2/96, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna vide his letter to the Collector dated 19th July, 1996 pointed out certain defects in the notification. In spite of the same, notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued in August, 1996. Thereafter, a number of landholders preferred CWJC No. 9454 of 1996 and 1661 of 1996 before this Court, wherein controversy was raised in respect to amended proviso the Section 5-A. This Court uide its order and judgment dated 9th February, 1998, while held that the State Government was competent to call for record of a land acquisition proceeding of its own motion or on application of any person also held that it can pass orders as it thinks fit. From the said case, it appears that the Hon'ble Minister I/C, passed certain order on 26th December, 1996. As the Hon'ble Minister I/C, apprehended certain doubts, directed the Collector to make resurvey of the area. As nothing done thereafter, the Court directed the State Government to dispose of the proceeding (D.L.A. Patna Case No. 2/97) in accordance with law at the earliest. Interim order of stay was passed by this Court, and it was observed that till final orders were passed, the petitioners of the said case be not dispossessed from the lands/buildings.