Harihar Mandar v. State Of Bihar — 1961 DIGILAW 142 (PAT)

Judgment S.P.Singh, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 10th December, 1955, dismissing the plaintiffs suit (Title suit No. 50 of 1954) instituted against the State of Bihar and Sinha Homeo Medical College and Hospital for a declaration that the land acquisition proceeding with respect to 1 bigha 12 katnas 9 dhurs and odd land was illegal and void. 2. The relevant facts leading to the institution of the suit are the following: Dr. Jadubir Sinha is a Homeopathic practitioner having his house in Mahana Bakarganj or Darbghanga town. There is a Homeopathic College and hospital known as Sinha Homeo College and hospital located in a part of the residential house of Dr. Sinha or which he happens to be the Principal. The college and hospital happed to be registered institution under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 For the purpose of providing suitable accommodation to the College, Dr. Sinha Applied in 1946, to Government through the Collector of Darbhanga for the acquisiton of 1 bigha 12 lathas 9 dhurs and 4 dhurkrs equivalent to 1.44acres of land near his house as described in the plaint. A land acquisiton proceeding No. 8 of 1946/47 was started and after a detailed and prolonged enquiry by the Land Acquisiton Officer, the Collector, the Commissioner and the State Government and after complying with the provision of Sec. 40 of the Land Acquisiton Act, the Government in the Revenue Department, issued a notification dated the 12th of September, 1949, under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Bhar Gazette dated the 21st of September, 1949, calling for objections under Sec. 5A by 14th of October, 1949. No objection was filed within the time prescribed. Thereafter a draft agreement under Sec. 41 of the Land Acquisition Act was sent to the Government for publication. In the meantime, Shri Harihar Mander, the plaintiff of the present suit (since dead) purchased a substantial portion of the land under acquisition and filed an objection before the Collector in August, 1951, which was rejected. He moved the Commissioner of the Tirhut Division against the order of the Collector. Being unsuccessful there, he moved the Government. In the meantime, Shri Harihar Mander, the plaintiff of the present suit (since dead) purchased a substantial portion of the land under acquisition and filed an objection before the Collector in August, 1951, which was rejected. He moved the Commissioner of the Tirhut Division against the order of the Collector. Being unsuccessful there, he moved the Government. Although an enquiry under Sec. 40 had already been made and after being a satisfied about the existence of public purpose the notification under Sec. 4 had been issued, the Government, on his objection, presumably for further assurance, directed the District Magistrate of Darbhanga to hold an enquiry again under Sec. 40 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of ascertaining if the land was required for a public purpose. The Collector made an enquiry afresh and reported to Government through the Commissioner that the acquisition in question would be useful to the public. Thereafter, the draft agreement under Sec. 41 of the Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on 24th of June, 1953, and a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was also published on the 2nd of September, 1953. Detailed measurements were made, khesra was prepared as required under Section 8 of the Act and notices to persons interested regarding compensation were issued under Section 9. Shri Harihar Mander filed an objection regarding compensation. Dr. Sinha also filed objection. After hearing the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence the Collector gave an award under Sec.11 of the Act. On 20th of June, 1954, possession was also delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Principal of the Sinha Homeopathic College. Notices under Sec.12(2) were issued to the person interested on the same date. (SIC) land in question was not for any public purpose, but that it was with a view to benent a private individual, Dr. (sic) Sinha, by improving the site of his house and by helping him in his business. The other ground pleaded by him was that the market value of the land in question was about Rs. 1,21,000.00 and not only Rs. 5,104/- as had been assed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He prayed for issue of an injunction against the defendant first party restraining it from proceeding with the land acquisition proceeding until the disposal of the suit. 1,21,000.00 and not only Rs. 5,104/- as had been assed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He prayed for issue of an injunction against the defendant first party restraining it from proceeding with the land acquisition proceeding until the disposal of the suit. The injunction matter was heard on the 21st of June, 1954, when the learned Subordinate Judge Shri R.P. Mukherji was informed that the proceeding had almost concluded inasmuch as possession had already been delivered to defendant No. 2 on the preceeding day, i.e. 20-6-54. The Subordinate Judge then granted a limited injunction restraining the defendant second party from raising any structure on the land in question. Thereafter, both the defendants filed separate written statements and contested the suit on identical pleas. Besides challenging the maintainability of the suit and pleading estoppel and limitation, they denied plaintiffs allegation regarding the defects and irregularities in the land acquisition proceeding. They averred that the land in question had been acquired after observing all the formalities and after fully complying with the relevant provisions of the Act. They also denied the fraudulent suppression of notices and asserted that the lands in question had been acquired after observing all the formalities and after fully complying with the relevant provisions of the Act. They also denied the fraudulent suppression of notices and asserted that the lands in question had been, properly valued. 3. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective picas and the learned Subordinate Judge, after considering all the materials on the record, came to the conclusion that the entire land acquisition proceeding, had been validity conducted after due service of notices and after complying with all the relevant provisions of the law. He accordingly held that the plaintiff had no valid on use of action against the defendants and dismissed the suit with costs. 4. Being aggrieved by this order the plaintiff preferred this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal the plaintiff died and was substituted by his three sons. At the request of the appellants the plaint was amended under the orders of this Court dated the 5th of May, 1961, by adding a relief for the recovery of possession. 5. Mr. 4. Being aggrieved by this order the plaintiff preferred this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal the plaintiff died and was substituted by his three sons. At the request of the appellants the plaint was amended under the orders of this Court dated the 5th of May, 1961, by adding a relief for the recovery of possession. 5. Mr. P.R. Das appearing for the appellants frist contended that the entire proceeding was vitiated and had been rendered nun and void as there was no notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It would be recalled that a notification had already been issued under this section of the Act in September, 1949. When the plaintiff however moved the Government, the collector was asked to make further enquiry into the matter. The contention of Mr. Das is that this direction by the Government amounted to abrogation of the previous notification and since after the receipt of the fresh report of the Collector, there was no re-issue of the notification under Sec. 4, the entire proceeding was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention he referred to the correspondence which passed between the Government and the Collector. It will be seen that the Collector had been directed to make an enquiry afresh by the letter of the Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar an the Revenue Department dated the 10th of November, 1951, Ext. F-1(9), addressed to the Commissioner of Trihut Division and was also asked for a draft of fresh notification under Sec. 4 of the Act and a draft for the cancellation of the previous notification issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. The Collector accordingly sent a draft notification for the cancellation of the previous notification on the 9th of February, 1952 (Ext. N-l). In the meantime, it appears that Dr. Sinha also made a representation to Government in December, 1951, challenging the allegation of Harihar Mander. It appears further that on Dr. Sinhas representation, Government stayed their hands and waited for a further report from the Collector of Darbhanga as to whether the acquisition of the land was likely to be useful to the public. That report of the Land Acquisition Officer was made on the 11th of July, 1952, to the Collector (Ext. E-1). It appears further that on Dr. Sinhas representation, Government stayed their hands and waited for a further report from the Collector of Darbhanga as to whether the acquisition of the land was likely to be useful to the public. That report of the Land Acquisition Officer was made on the 11th of July, 1952, to the Collector (Ext. E-1). The Collector heard the parties again and also held a local inspection and then reported to the Commissioner on 11th of November, 1952, to the effect that the acquisition was needed for the construction, of a homeopathic College and hospital building and that he had no doubt that it would prove useful to the public and recommended that an action for the publication of an agreement under Sec. 41 of the Land Acquisition Act be taken by Government, Ext. F-1(10). The Government accepted the proposal of the Collector and the agreement under Sec. 41 of the Act was published and a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was also published. It is thus evident that there is no factual basis for the contention of Mr. Das here was in fact no annulment of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. The direction of the Government for a fresh enquiry did not amount to the cancellation of the previous notification. All that the Government did was to satisfy itself whether or not there was legal basis for this notification and when the Government were satisfied that the acquisition was for a public purpose, no further action was taken on the objection of the plaintiff. Rather the publication of the agreement under Sec. 41 of the Act. which was pending due to the objection of the plaintiff, was made. This, in my opinion, is not a setting aside of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act but reaffirmance of the legitimacy of the action taken by the Land Acquisition Officers. It is abundantly clear that on the representation of Dr. which was pending due to the objection of the plaintiff, was made. This, in my opinion, is not a setting aside of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act but reaffirmance of the legitimacy of the action taken by the Land Acquisition Officers. It is abundantly clear that on the representation of Dr. Sinha, Government were satisfied that there was no need for the cancellation of the notification and all that they wanted was to be sure once again as to whether the project was likely to be useful to the public and on being satisfied on the report of the local officers, the Government allowed the land acquisition case to proceed from the stage it had already reached and accordingly steps under Sections 8, 9 and 11 were taken. I must say that this is one of the proceedings in which the fullest enquiry had been made. Not only mat the plaintiff was heard but his objections at every stage were thoroughly investigated not once but twice and, therefore, mere is no room for any legitimate grievance on this score. Nothing more could have been done. I may further point out that a notification published in the Bihar Gazete under Section 4 of the Act can be cancelled only by a notification similarly published as provides under Sec.21 of the General Clauses Act. Admittedly, no notification was issued cancelling the previous one. Mr. Das suggested that it amounts to withdrawal of the proceeding under Sec. 48 of the Act. As will appear from the above, there was no withdrawal of the proceeding at all and I fail to understand as to how the action that the Government took on plaintiffs objection would amount to cancellation of the notification or withdrawal of the proceeding especially when the same proceeding was continued and the actions taken by the local officers were approved by the Government. 6. The second contention of Mr. Das is that the Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. S.K. Shere (D. W. 18), in collusion with Dr. 6. The second contention of Mr. Das is that the Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. S.K. Shere (D. W. 18), in collusion with Dr. Sinha, signed the award and delivered possession of the land in question on 20th of June, 1954, which was a Sunday, without complying with the provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, with a view to forestall the order of the court on the injunction petition which had been fixed for hearing on the following day, i.e., on the 21st of June, 1954, in the court of the Subordinate Judge. This, according to him, constitutes fraud on the statute and has the effect of invalidating the order of the Land Acquisition Officer. I have carefully examined the various orders passed from the year 1951 to the year 1954, in the land acquisition proceeding and have also perused the evidence adduced by the parties in this suit and find that no fraud was committed at any stage of the proceeding nor had there been any evasion of any provision of the Land Acquisition Act From the orders dated 10-3-54 and 26-3-54 passed in the land acquisition proceeding it appears that on receipt of Government orders, the Land Acquisition Officer took steps for the preparation of Khesra and service of notices under Section 9 of the Act and that such notices were served on all concerned, including Harihar Mander. The subsequent orders dated 29-3-54, 3-4-54, 10-4-54, 14-4-54, 20-4-54 and 24-4-54 show that the objections of Harihar Mander and Dr. Yadubir Sinha were considered and the documents filed by them were perused by the Land Acquisition Officer and after considering the case from all aspects he passed an order regarding valuation of the land in question, which was approved by the Collector also. Finally, the valuation statement was prepared and signed on 20-6-54. Award was made and possession also was delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the same day. Notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act was also issued to the parties concerned. The plaintiff examined a number of witnesses, such as, P. Ws. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 to 23 to say that no notice of any kind was served on the spot. Notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act was also issued to the parties concerned. The plaintiff examined a number of witnesses, such as, P. Ws. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 to 23 to say that no notice of any kind was served on the spot. But, it appears that most of them are either partisan witnesses or are on inimical terms with defendant No. 2 and the rest have proved nothing but their ignorance of the fact they were called on to depose. Further-more, they are belied by the statement of the Collectorate peon (D. W. 19) and the drummer (D. W. 20) who served notices under Sec. 4 on the spot by beat of drum. The learned Subordinate Judge has dealt with this aspect of the case in detail and has rightly come to the finding that there was proper service of notice on the parties at all the stages when required. From this it will appear that the entire proceeding was conducted in a regular manner after hearing the persons interested and no prejudice was caused to the appellant. As a matter of fact, the delay in the early conclusion of the proceeding was due to the plaintiffs objection at various stages. The plaintiff had purchased only a small area in 1948 out of the lands in question, but long after the issue of the notification under Sec. 4 he purposely purchased a larger area of the land under acquisition obviously with an avowed object of creating difficulties in the way of the Institution and his conduct has rightly been adversely commented upon by the court below. In the circumstances, there can be no doubt that all the notices were duly served and all orders were passed and action taken after hearing the plaintiff and to his knowledge. Therefore, the imputation of fraud of any sort is wholly baseless and I should say that it is a desperate argument. 7. The signing of the award on a Sunday is at the most irregular but certainly not illegal so as to invalidate the whole proceeding. In the instant proceeding strictly speaking it cannot be regarded even as irregular because while passing the award the Land Acquisition Officer does not function as a court. The validity of the delivery of possession on a Sunday which is purely a ministerial act, cannot also be challenged. In the instant proceeding strictly speaking it cannot be regarded even as irregular because while passing the award the Land Acquisition Officer does not function as a court. The validity of the delivery of possession on a Sunday which is purely a ministerial act, cannot also be challenged. In any event, no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that originally 21st of June had been fixed for the award but in order to avoid the untoward effect of the injunction matter, which had also been fixed on 21st, the Land Acquisition Officer deliberately changed the date in the ordersheet from 21st to 20th of June and made the award and delivered possession in hot haste. I do not, think that the alteration of the date from 21st June to 20th June necessarily supports the theory of fraud on the part of the land acquisition Officer to circumvent any possible adverse order on the. injunction matter. Mr. Shere, the Land Acquisition Officer, has given satisfactory explanation for this alteration. He has been examined in this case as D. W. 18 and his evidence is that he changed the date from 21st to 20th because he had to go out on an inspection tour in connection with an urgent work. He did not give any notice to the parties regarding this change in the date because it was not at all necessary. He had already heard the parties and decided their objections. All that he had to do was to sign the valuation statements to give the award and to take possession. The explanation of Mr. Shere appears to be plausible and it cannot be said that he did so in league with defendant No. 2, especially when we find that no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff and no special advantage accrued to defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs objection regarding valuation etc. had already been heard and decided and not being content with that he got a reference made under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge of Darbhanga for determining the proper valuation of the lands acquired and that matter is pending there. The plaintiffs objection regarding valuation etc. had already been heard and decided and not being content with that he got a reference made under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge of Darbhanga for determining the proper valuation of the lands acquired and that matter is pending there. In spite of the delivery of possession, defendant No. 2 also could not make any use of the land in question till the disposal of the suit because he was restrained from raising any construction over the land in question. The grievance of the plaintiff, therefore, is wholly misconceived and imaginary and there is no substance in this argument. 8. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer, instead of taking possession of the land under Sec.16 of the Act, delivered possession directly to defendant No. 2. There is hardly any substance in this argument as well. From the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer (D. W. 18) it appears that he assumed possession of the property on behalf of the Government and immediately thereafter he delivered possession of the same to defendant No. 2 for which the land had been acquired. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no compliance with the provisions of Sec.16 of the Act. Assumption of possession under Sec.16 of the Act and delivery of possession to the company may be effected on the same day and at the same hour, and, therefore no illegality is involved in such a procedure. Thus, on a consideration of all these facts and circumstances, I have no doubt that no fraud was committed at any stage of the land acquisition proceeding nor was there an evasion of any of the provisions of the Act by shift or contrivance. 9. Mr. Das finally suggested that Mr. Shere, the Land Acquisition Officer, had not been vested with the powers of Collector at the relevant point of time when he was passing orders in the land acquisition proceeding in question. The Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the notification No. BL/3037/53/4495 R, dated the 14th November, 1953, which shows that Mr. Shere had in fact been vested with the powers of a Collector under Sec.2(c) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no substance in this plea as well. 10. The Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the notification No. BL/3037/53/4495 R, dated the 14th November, 1953, which shows that Mr. Shere had in fact been vested with the powers of a Collector under Sec.2(c) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no substance in this plea as well. 10. The learned Subordinate Judge has dealt with every aspect of the case and has come to a correct finding. in agreement with his finding I hold that there is absolutely no merit in his appeal and it must fail both on the point of law as well as on point of fact. 11. In the result, the judgment and decree of the Court below are upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. Sahai, J. 12 I agree but I wish to add a few observations of ray own. The first point which Mr. P.R. Das has argued is that notification No. 5336-IL 281/49-R., dated the 12th September 1949, under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (exhibit N-II (1)), which was published in the Bihar Gazette, was cancelled, and that the entire proceedings have been vitiated because no fresh notification under that section was published. He has not been able to show that any notification cancelling the notification dated the 12th September, 1949, was issued or published by the Government of Bihar, and he has conceded that in view of Sec.21 of the General Clauses Act, a notification cancelling the notification under Sec. 4 had to be published in the Bihar Gazette just as a notification under that section had to be published. He has, however, argued that the orders of the Government show that the Government withdrew Irom the acquisition in the land acquisition proceedings in question under Sec. 48 of the Act. In my judgment there is no substance at all in this argument 13. It is necessary now to mention some facts. It was on the 2nd December, 1946, that the defendant-second-party made an application for acquisition of land which gave rise to the land acquisition proceeding in question. The Land Acquisition Officer made an enquiry under Sec. 40 of the Act, and, by his order dated the 12th August, 1949, held that the acquisition was likely to prove useful to the public. The Collector approved of this order, and a report was submitted to the Government accordingly. The Land Acquisition Officer made an enquiry under Sec. 40 of the Act, and, by his order dated the 12th August, 1949, held that the acquisition was likely to prove useful to the public. The Collector approved of this order, and a report was submitted to the Government accordingly. On the 12th September, 1949, the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was issued by the Government, as I have already said. On the 29th July, 1950, the agreement under Sec. 41 of the Act was entered into. Objection under Sec. 5A could be filed within thirty days of the notification under sec. 4; but the plaintiff filed an objection for the first time on the 20th September, 1950. By his order (exhibit C-I), dated the 3rd August, 1951, the Collector rejected the objection. The plaintiffs application for revision before the Commissioner was dismissed. It appears that the plaintiff then submitted a representation to the Government, and the Government sent a letter (exhibit F.I (9)), dated the 10th November, 1951 to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division. It reads: "I am directed to refer to your letter No. 6475R dated the 20th September, 1951 and to say that a fresh Notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and a cancellation Notification for the previous notification already published may kindly be sent to Government. "The Collector may be requested to submit a fresh report under Sec. 40 of the Land Acquisition Act." 14. it is clear that this letter does not convey any decision as to the cancellation of the previous notification but merely calls upon the Collector to make a fresh enquiry under Sec. 40 of the Act. Presumably, the Government felt some doubt as to whether a proper enquiry under Sec. 40 had been made previously, and hence it directed a fresh and full enquiry under that section by the Collector. Before any report in response to this letter could be submitted, the defendant-second-party filed a representation, dated the 8th December, 1951, to the Government. The Government forwarded a copy of the representation to the Collector of Darbhanga with, its letter No. B/L. 2025/51-6263 R. (exhibit F-1 (6)) dated the 28th December, 1951, and directed him to submit a report. Thus, the representations of both parties were before the Government by December, 1951. The Government forwarded a copy of the representation to the Collector of Darbhanga with, its letter No. B/L. 2025/51-6263 R. (exhibit F-1 (6)) dated the 28th December, 1951, and directed him to submit a report. Thus, the representations of both parties were before the Government by December, 1951. The Collector of Darbhanga submitted a draft notification (exhibit N-I) under his signature, dated the 9th February, 1952, for cancelling the previous notification under sec. 4. This does not appear to have been approved, and, in any cases there is nothing to show that any notification on the lines of this draft was issued by the Government or published in the Bihar Gazette. 15. The Land Acquisition Officer proceeded with the enquiry under Sec. 40 in the presence of both parties, in spite of the protests of Dr. Yadubir Sinha, Principal of the college which is the defendant-second-party. A number of documents were filed, and several witnesses were examined before: him on behalf of the objector, who is the plaintiff in this suit. The Land Acquisition Officer also held local inspection. On the 11th July, 1952, he prepared his report (exhibit E-I) in which he said thai construction of a Homeopathic College and Hospital, for which the land was being acquired, would, in his opinion, be useful to the public. He then said that the matter had progressed far, and he left it to the higher authorities to judge and decide what action should be taken. The Collector himself then took up the enquiry under Sec. 40. He paid a surprise visit to the land under acquisition, and, in his order dated the 11th November, 1952, he came to the definite conclusion that, contrary to the contention of the objector before him, i.e., the plaintiff in the present suit, the Sinha Homeo Medical College and Hospital existed, and that land was required for the construction of a building for the College and Hospital independently. He further felt satisfied that the acquisition was likely to prove useful to the public as the land was needed for the construction of the College and Hospital. He forwarded a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, with his letter No. 8556 R. (exhibit F-I (10)), dated the 2nd December, 1952. In that letter, he recommended that action should be taken to publish the agreement under Sec. 41 of the Act. He forwarded a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, with his letter No. 8556 R. (exhibit F-I (10)), dated the 2nd December, 1952. In that letter, he recommended that action should be taken to publish the agreement under Sec. 41 of the Act. The agreement was actually published on the 24th June, 1953, and the declaration under Sec. 6, dated the 22nd August, 1953 (exhibit A-I) was also published. 16. The facts which I have mentioned above show unmistakably that the Government had never any intention at any time to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, and it is manifest that it never withdrew from the acquisition. The argument that the Governemtn cancelled the notification under Section 4 of withdrew from the acquisition under Sec. 48 has been based upon the mere fact that the Government, at one stage, ordered a fresh enquiry under Section 40 on the plaintiffs prayer, and considered whether the notification under Sec. 4 should or should not be cancelled. It is obvious that, in view of the report submitted by the Collector after the fresh enquity under Section 40, the Government did not cancel the notification under Sec. 48. Indeed, the Governmetn proceeded further and published the agreement under Sec. 41 as well as the declaration under Sec. 6, showing that it did not find any merit in the objection of the plaintiff. There is, therefore, no reason to hold that the proceeding has been vitiated. 17. The only other point which Mr. Das has urged is that Mr. S.K. Shere, the Land Acquisition Officer, acted precipitately in collusion with Dr. Yadubir Sinha, changed the date luted in the land acquisition proceeding before him from the 21st June, 1954, to the 20th June, 1954, and delivered possession of the acquired land to the defendant second-party on that date in order to forestall an injunction order from the Civil Court. The plaintiffs prayer for temporary injunction was to be heard before the Subordinate Judge on the 21st June, 1954. Mr. Shere (D. W. 18) has admitted that he changed the date fixed in the proceeding before him from the 21st June to the 20th June, which was a Sunday, and he has explained that he did so because he had to go out to Hasanpur Sugar Mill on an urgent work in the morning of the 21st June. Mr. Shere (D. W. 18) has admitted that he changed the date fixed in the proceeding before him from the 21st June to the 20th June, which was a Sunday, and he has explained that he did so because he had to go out to Hasanpur Sugar Mill on an urgent work in the morning of the 21st June. It does seem to me that Mr. Sheres action in changing the date from the 21st to the 20th June was extremely irregular. It he wished to alter the date on account of the call of duty elsewhere, he should have fixed a subsequent date. It seems to me, however, that no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff by this action of Mr. Shere. 18. The Land Acquisition Officer recorded an order on the 26th March, 1954, that service report of notice under section 9 had been received, and the notice had been duly served. Harihar Mandal the plaintiff who filed the present suit, filed a pention for time to file objection, and this was granted. Evidence relating to valuation was called for from him. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an order (Exhibit. E-I (1)), dated the 24th April, 1954, accepting the valuation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of enquiry under Section 6. He did so after taking into consideration all the documents filed by Harihar Mandal. This was approved by the Collector. The Land Acquisition Officer directed the land acquisition clerk to prepare the valuation statement There was thus nothing left for the parties to do. The land acquisition clerk had only to prepare a valuation statement in accordance with the valuation which had already been fixed. Thus, only a ministerial act was left to be done. The valuation statement was prepared. It was on the 20th June that it was put up for signature before the Land Acquisition Officer. On that date, the Land Acquisition Officer signed the valuation statement, ordered notice under Section 12(2) to issue, and delivered possession of the acquired land to the deiendant-second party. The plaintiff could not raise any objection to any of these acts, and his presence before the Land Acquisition Officer on the 20th or 21st June, 1954, was, theretore, unnecessary. I hold, therefore, that no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff by the irregular act of Mr. Shere. The plaintiff could not raise any objection to any of these acts, and his presence before the Land Acquisition Officer on the 20th or 21st June, 1954, was, theretore, unnecessary. I hold, therefore, that no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff by the irregular act of Mr. Shere. Even in so far as the injunction matter is concerned, the plaintiffs purpose was served because the Subordinate Judge issued an injunction, restraining the defendant second party "from raising any construction or doing any thing over the land which might go to change the status quo". 19. For the reasons which 1 have given above, I agree that the appeal be dismissed with costs throughout.