KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions seek the same relief (s) and arise from the same set of facts and circumstances. These were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) AN anomalous situation has arisen due to the mistake committed by the respondent authorities. In a certificate proceeding held for the recovery of the dues of estate duty against the estate of a private individual, the respondent authorities got certain plots of land auction sold under the notion that those plots were part of the estate of the deceased. But they seem to have over -looked that those plots being part of a much larger area had vested in the State in a land acquisition proceeding. Their action has thus put the interests of the petitioners, who purchased these plots by auction in sales made through court, in sharp conflict with those of the parties for whose benefit the lands were taken in acquisition.

(3.) IN the year, 1961, the State proceeded to acquire a large area of land (57.71 acres) under the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition was being made partly in favour of the Patna Improvement Trust (now Patna Regional Development Authority, respondent no.3 in CWJC No. 2586 of 1996) and partly in favour of a housing co -operative society under the name of Budha Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti (respondent no.4 in CWJC No. 2586/1996). While the acquisition proceeded haltingly, passing through litigations in this court and the Supreme Court, a completely unrelated development crossed the course of the acquisition proceeding. On 1.11.1969 a certificate proceeding was initiated against the widowed wife of one Dwarika Mahto (deceased) for the realisation of Rs. 13,09,327/ - as dues of estate duty against the estate of the deceased. In that proceeding, at the instance of the respondent authorities certain plots of land, which were part of the larger area being the subject matter of the acquisition proceeding and which had already vested in the State were auction sold apparently in the belief that those plots were part of the estate of the deceased Dwarika Mahto. The petitioners in these three cases purchased those plots in sales made in the certificate proceeding and later confirmed by the Certificate Officer. At that time no one, including the petitioners, seem to have realised that those plots being part of the larger area having vested in the State were no longer open for sale as being part of the estate of an individual person. It may further be noted here that the sale of the plots in question in the certificate proceeding was also affirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court when a writ petition and an appeal filed by one of the heirs of Dwarika Mahto seeking to challenge auction sale were rejected by this court and the Supreme Court respectively.