Ramakrishna Mission Ashram v. State Of Bihar — 1988 DIGILAW 76 (PAT)

Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner-Mission, namely, Ramakrishna Mission Ashram, Morabadi, Ranchi, for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of plot No. 952 measuring about 93 decimals in Morabadi, Ranchi. The notification in respect of the plot in question was issued by the State of Bihar under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 1-6-1983. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of time, the respondent-State and its officers are not taking prompt steps to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner-Ashram. The writ application has, therefore, been filed to compel the respondent-State and its officers to take prompt action and to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of plot No. 952 which is to be acquired for the purpose of the petitioner-Ashram. 2. The petitioner-Ashram is a branch of Ramakrishna Mission at Balurmath in the district of Howrah, West Bengal. The Ramakrishna Mission is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its object is to impart and promote the study of Vedanta and its purpose as propounded by Sri Ramakrishna in its widest form and also to propagate religious social and educational teachings and activities for the benefit of public at large. The petitioner claims that with a view to achieve its objectives, the Mission, inter alia, establishes, maintains and carries on schools, colleges, orphanages, workshops, libraries, hospitals, dispensaries, houses for the infirm etc. and also does other work of educational and charitable character. At Morabadi, Ranchi, the Mission started an agricultural training institute, named, as Dibyayan Krishi Vigyan Kendra (hereinafter referred to as Dibyayan). Dibyayan was established in the year 1969 over an area measuring about 2 acres It was set up as an agricultural training institute and according to the petitioner, large number of trainees from various parts of the country have taken advantage of their teaching programmes. The petitioner claims that in the year 1975 the then Assit. Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, informed the petitioner that it was proposing to establish Krishi Vigyan Kendras. The petitioner claims that in the year 1975 the then Assit. Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, informed the petitioner that it was proposing to establish Krishi Vigyan Kendras. in different parts of the country, particularly, in the backward areas and requested the petitioner to submit a proposal for running one such Krishi Vigyan Kendra under its control. The petitioner was given to understand that the financial and other incentives will be provided by the Government. Initially the petitioner-Mission was not interested in the Project, but, in view of the insistence of the Council as also recommendation by the State Government as well as- the Ranchi Agricultural University, the petitioner-Mission undertook the Project in public interest. The petitioner-Mission has been receiving grants from the Council from time to time in connection with the said Project. Similarly, the Government of India has also been supporting the activities of Dibyayan through regular annual grants since the year 1969 in the interest of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as well as backward/weaker sections of the Society for imparting such training. 3. In view of the need for expansion of the Kendra, the Government of Bihar was requested to acquire land for the expansion of Dibyayan. The petitioner claims that it negotiated with some of the owners of plot No. 952 for sale of portions of plot No. 952 to it. Though some of the owners were agreeable to sell their lands to the petitioner, some others refused to sell their lands to the petitioner even though the petitioner offered alternative accommodation in the vicinity to them. In these circumstances, the petitioner applied to the Land Acquisition Collector, Ranchi, for acquisition of certain lands for expansion of Dibyayan and these lands related to Khesra Nos. 967, 968, 969, 1041 (part), 962, 961, 952 and 950. These lands were most suited for the purpose of the expansion of Dibyayan as they were adjacent lands. The matter was considered by the Land Acquisition Committee and in its meeting held on 18-8-1979, it resolved to approve for acquisition of an area of 5.40 acres of land at Morabadi for the purpose of Dibyayan. The Committee took its decision after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer. The matter was considered by the Land Acquisition Committee and in its meeting held on 18-8-1979, it resolved to approve for acquisition of an area of 5.40 acres of land at Morabadi for the purpose of Dibyayan. The Committee took its decision after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer. Surprisingly, however, the notification that was issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was only in respect of 3.47 acres of land. The notification made under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act excluded plot Nos. 950 and 952. The petitioner objected to the exclusion of these two plots and upon enquiry it was revealed that these two plots had been excluded at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. However, a notification under Sec. 4 was separately made and published on 1-6-1983 in the Ranchi Gazette in respect of plot No. 952 which is the plot in-question in the instant writ application. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though all the formalities under the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had been observed, and the land owners had been offered reasonable price, all of them did not agree to part with their lands in favour of the petitioner. Some of the land owners filed objections under Sec. 5-A of the Act. Apart from contending that instead of plot No. 952, some other plot can be acquired which would serve the purpose, it was also contended on their behalf, that the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was illegal in view of the provisions, of Sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Acquisition Act since no agreement had been entered into between the company and the State Government before publication of the notification It is not necessary to refer to the various factual averments made by the petitioner in regard to the manner in which the objections under Section 5-A of the Act were disposed of. Ultimately, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on the 3rd of July, 1985. Some of the land owners preferred a writ petition before the High Court in which a notice was issued on the 12th of December, 1985. By the same order, status quo as regards possession was maintained. Ultimately, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on the 3rd of July, 1985. Some of the land owners preferred a writ petition before the High Court in which a notice was issued on the 12th of December, 1985. By the same order, status quo as regards possession was maintained. In the aforesaid writ application, the State Government filed an affidavit realizing its mistake in issuing a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act without first complying with the requirements of Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, namely, entering into an agreement with the petitioner-Mission before issuance of a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. In view of the stand taken by the State Government, the petitioners in that writ application did not press their writ application and the same was dismissed as not pressed. The order passed by this Court on 16-4-1986 records the fact that the notification under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been withdrawn, though technically speaking, the formal withdrawal of the notification under Sec. 6 of the Act took place on a subsequent date to which reference will be made hereinafter. 5. After the writ application was withdrawn, the petitioner claims to have executed an agreement in ten sets and handed over the same to the District Land Acquisition Officer for necessary action. According to the petitioner the said agreement was signed by it on the 2nd of May, 1986. The petitioner complains that even thereafter the authorities took considerable time in taking further steps in accordance with law. After considering the report of the Additional Collector, Ranchi, the Land Reforms Commissioner by order dated 17-5-1986 approved the acquisition of plot No. 952. The under-Secretary, Land Acquisition, issued a direction to the Land Acquisition Authorities of the district of Ranchi for withdrawing the Gazette notification dated 3rd July, 1985 which had earlier been made under Sec. 6 of the Act. This was done by Gazette notification dated 25th July, 1986, published in the Ranchi District Gazette and consequently, the earlier declaration under Sec. 6 stood withdrawn. This fact was communicated to the under-Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, by the District Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated 14th of August, 1986. This was done by Gazette notification dated 25th July, 1986, published in the Ranchi District Gazette and consequently, the earlier declaration under Sec. 6 stood withdrawn. This fact was communicated to the under-Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, by the District Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated 14th of August, 1986. He also informed him that the Ramakrishna Mission had already handed over ten copies of the agreement for taking necessary and appropriate action. The petitioners representative also personally met the authorities concerned and requested them for issuance of a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act since it had complied with all the legal requirements and a declaration under Sec. 6 could be published. According to the petitioner, on account of the delaying tactics adopted by the officials of the Secretariat no declaration could be issued. The file was not moving as it should have and the petitioner, therefore, apprehended that by adopting such tactics the entire acquisition may be defeated by reason of unreasonable delay. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the instant writ application on the 1st of October, 1986 praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent-State to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in which an objection has been raised that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that all the persons affected have not been made parties in the writ petition. It has further been stated that the Land Acquisition Committee in its resolution while approving for acquisition of 5.40 acres of land at Morabadi for the petitioner-Ashram, also resolved that the land-holders will get an equal area of land at suitable place instead of compensation in cash, and the Mission had agreed to provide for equal area in plot No. 968. The said plot No. 968 also did not belong to the Mission and had to be acquired for this purpose. But the said land acquisition proceeding has been quashed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 963/83(R) and affirmed in L. P. A. 25 of 1985(R). It is further contended by the State that plot no. The said plot No. 968 also did not belong to the Mission and had to be acquired for this purpose. But the said land acquisition proceeding has been quashed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 963/83(R) and affirmed in L. P. A. 25 of 1985(R). It is further contended by the State that plot no. 952 was excluded at the instance of the petitioner itself, It is further submitted on behalf of the State that after the Mission had submitted ten sets of agreement, the same were sent to the Government under cover of letter dated 6-5-1986 for necessary action. Action was taken in the matter and legal opinion was also obtained from the Department of Law. It is then stated that in view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the proceeding stood lapsed after 31-5-1986 and this fact was communicated to the District Acquisition Office by the Revenue Department under cover of its letter dated 2840-1986. It is further stated that the Mission required 5.42 acres of land. The acquisition proceeding was initiated in respect of 3,47 acres of land but the same had been quashed by the High Court in C. W. J, C. 963/83(R). The plot No. 952 which was the subject matter of the writ application measured only 0.93 acres and this plot was so small that it could hardly meet the need of the petitioner-Ashram. 7. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of added respondents 6 to 13. These respondents were added as parties in the writ application since they have interest in plot No. 952 for the acquisition of which the instant writ application was filed. It is not necessary to refer in any detail to the various objections taken by these respondents since that is not necessary for the disposal of this writ application. These respondents, however, have stated that many of them have constructed residential houses on portions of plot No. 952 in which they are residing with their family members. They claim that they had taken loan for the purpose of building the residential houses and many of them constructed those houses with great difficulty having regard to their financial resources. They have also claimed that these residential houses were constructed after getting sanction of building plant by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. They claim that they had taken loan for the purpose of building the residential houses and many of them constructed those houses with great difficulty having regard to their financial resources. They have also claimed that these residential houses were constructed after getting sanction of building plant by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. The plot in-question is located in a residential locality and hardly suitable for the purpose for which the petitioner-Mission wants it to be acquired. According to them, having regard to the fact that large number of residential houses have come up on the plot in-question. the petitioner-Mission itself did not show any interest in the acquisition of this plot and that is why this plot was not notified when the earlier notification under Sec. 4 was issued. It is, then, contended that plot No. 1045 is a big plot and intervened only by the Municipal road. This plot could be acquired for the purpose of petitioner-Mission, but, since that plot belongs to a follower of the petitioner-Mission, who is also its legal advisor, the petitioner-Mission did not ask for the acquisition of that plot. Plot No. 1045 belongs to one person whereas in plot No. 952 large number of persons have interest. It has further been alleged that l/3rd of plot No. 952 belongs to one Sri S. N. Sarkar. The portion of land belonging to said Sri Sarkar has been conveniently left out of acquisition because Mr. Sarkar happens to be a member of the Managing Committee of, the petitioner-Ashram and, perhaps, an office-bearer. In this manner it has been alleged that the claim of the petitioner-Mission is not bona fide and the Mission is bent upon acquiring the lands of those who are not its followers, even though some of the persons who own lands in the locality and who are its followers have not been touched. It has been submitted that it is the discretion of the State Government to issue a notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose and. no writ should be issued to compel the State Government to publish such a notification. It has also been urged that the declaration under Section 6 could have been issued within three years from the date on which the notification under Sec. 4(1) was published. no writ should be issued to compel the State Government to publish such a notification. It has also been urged that the declaration under Section 6 could have been issued within three years from the date on which the notification under Sec. 4(1) was published. That not having been done, the State Government cannot now issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the other averments made in their counter affidavit since it is not necessary to enter into the factual controversies raised by these respondents. 8. The petitioner Mission has filed rejoinder-affidavits in reply to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents substantially reiterating its stand in the writ petition. 9. Mr. B. C. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Ashram, contended that the State Government having earlier issued a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which it withdrew with liberty to issue a fresh declaration in view of the technical objections raised in a writ petition filed by some of the owners of land in plot No. 952, was duty bound to issue another declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. The petitioner-Mission having done all that was necessary in this regard and having submitted the agreement to be executed by the State Government for the purpose of acquisition of plot No. 952, the State Government could not now decline to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. It was contended by him that the bar to the issuance of a declaration and notification under Sec. 6 of the Act did not apply to the Land Acquisition Act as amended by various amendments made by the Bihar Legislature. His contention was that the bar under the first proviso to Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act applied only to a case where a notification under Sec. 4 of the Act had been issued under the Land Acquisition Act as it was originally framed. In the context of the amendments made to Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Bihar Legislature, the first proviso to Sec. 6 could not apply. In the context of the amendments made to Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Bihar Legislature, the first proviso to Sec. 6 could not apply. He, therefore, contended that it was futile for the respondents to insist that the State Government had no authority left to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act in view of the lapse of more than three years from the date of the notification published under Sec. 4 of the Act. 10. Before dealing with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to notice the submissions in brief advanced on behalf of the respondents. Mr. N. Roy, G. P II appearing on behalf of the State submitted that no mandamus could be issued to the State Commanding it to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act No duty has been cast by a Statute upon the State to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 and it is for the State to consider whether it should or should not issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act having regard to the legal provisions as also to the objections that have been filed under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It has been submitted that small chunk of land measuring only 0.93 acres cannot meet the need of the petitioner-Mission which required about 5.4 acres of land. So far as the execution of agreement is concerned, he submitted that so far no agreement has been executed on behalf of the State of Bihar though the petitioner-Mission has submitted draft agreement. The State Government cannot mechanically execute an agreement with the petitioner-Mission and before it executes any agreement, it has to be satisfied that the agreement is in accordance with law. There was, therefore, no question of enforcing any principle of estoppel or promissory estoppel in the instant case. He also contended that in view of the first proviso to Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act cannot be issued after a lapse of more than three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. Mr. He also contended that in view of the first proviso to Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act cannot be issued after a lapse of more than three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents 6 to 13, submitted that basically two questions arose in the instant writ application. Firstly, whether any writ could be issued directing the State Government to issue a declaration when by operation of law, the State had no power left to issue such a declaration after a lapse of more than three years from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. Secondly, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner had made out a case for issue of a writ of mandamus which pre-supposed a clear statutory duty cast upon the State to issue a declaration under Sec. 6. His submission was that if the Government did not find it expedient to issue such a declaration, it was not amenable to a writ of mandamus for making a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. The Government having decided not to issue a declaration under Sec. 6, the petitioner cannot force the Government to do so. There is no public duty cast upon the State to go on acquiring land. Only when an acquisition is made, its legality can be examined by a court of law. 12. Before dealing with the legal submissions advanced before me. I consider it necessary to first clear the factual position in regard to the issuance of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and its publication in the manner provided under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act as amended by the Bihar Legislature, by Bihar Act 34 of 1956 and Bihar Act II of 1961. I consider it necessary to first clear the factual position in regard to the issuance of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and its publication in the manner provided under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act as amended by the Bihar Legislature, by Bihar Act 34 of 1956 and Bihar Act II of 1961. Sec. 4 of the Act as amended by the aforesaid Bihar Acts provides that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act shall be published at the office of the Collector at the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, at the offices of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated. It further requires that the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. On, a plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4, it is patent that the notification has to be published in the prescribed modes by being published at the various offices mentioned therein. Apart from publication in this manner, the section also requires the Collector to cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. It is not in dispute that a notification under Sec. 4 was published in the official Gazette on 1-6-1983. Mr. Ghosh contends that such a publication in the official Gazette was not contemplated by Sec. 4 of the Act as amended by Bihar Legislature. The publication of the notification must be done in the manner laid down under Sec. 4 of the Act as applicable to the State of Bihar. In view of the submission of Mr. Ghosh, I had directed the State to produce the original records. The original records have been produced in court. It appears that the notification was published in the Ranchi District Gazette (extraordinary issue) on the 1st of June, 1983. A copy of the Gazette is contained in the file produced before me. There are certain endorsements made on the aforesaid copy of the Gazette. The original records have been produced in court. It appears that the notification was published in the Ranchi District Gazette (extraordinary issue) on the 1st of June, 1983. A copy of the Gazette is contained in the file produced before me. There are certain endorsements made on the aforesaid copy of the Gazette. The first endorsement shows that copies of the notification were sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Sub-divisional Office, Sadar, Ranchi Circle Officer, town circle, Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, for being notified by affixing on the Notice Board. The endorsements made show that the concerned authorities received the notification on the 27th of June, 1983. They have made endorsements to this effect on the copy of the Gazette notification. There is also the endorsement of the persons who had handed over copies of the Gazette notification to the concerned authorities. He has further mentioned that apart this, he had also published the notification in village Morabadi by affixing a copy of the Gazette notification on the village chauraha (road crossing) for the general public. This endorsement is also dated 27th June, 1983. Having perused the original file produced before me I am satisfied that so far as publication of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act is concerned, the same had been done on 27-6-83 in the manner prescribed by subjection (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act as amended by the Bihar Legislature. There is, however, nothing in the file produced before me to show on which dates the individual notices were served upon the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. According to the learned Government pleader, even if the 27th of June, 1983 is taken to be the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, a declaration under Sec. 6 could be issued within three years of that date, that is, on or before the 26th of June, 1986. The instant writ application was filed on the 1st of October, 1986 and, therefore, even on the date on which the petitioner approached this Court, the State Government had no authority to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. 13. In order to appreciate the submission advanced by Mr. The instant writ application was filed on the 1st of October, 1986 and, therefore, even on the date on which the petitioner approached this Court, the State Government had no authority to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. 13. In order to appreciate the submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner, it will be necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 as also relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Bihar Legislature in its application to the State of Bihar (for the sake of convenience I shall refer to the former as the Central Act and the latter as the State Act). The relevant parts of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Central Act provide as follows : 4(1) : Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification..,." "5-A(1) : Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Sec. 4, Sub-section (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be...." "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Sec. 5-A, Sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4, Sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Sec. 5-A, Sub-section (2) : Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Sec. 4 Sub-section (1) : (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967, but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification : Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.... The relevant parts of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the State Act provide as follows : 4. (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer at the offices of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948), and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated; and the collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Explanation : For the purpose of this section the expression smallest revenue administrative unit shall mean the revenue administrative unit next below that of a sub-division whether known for the same being, as N. E. S. Block, Circle, Anchal or otherwise." "5-A. Hearing of objections : (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Sec. 4 Sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may within thirty days after the publication of the notification referred to in the said sub-section at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated or of the service of the copy thereof on him, whichever is later." "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose-(1) Subject to the provisions of. Part VII of this Act, where the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the Collectors report if any, under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec. 5-A, or the Collector is satisfied after hearing the objections, if any, under Sec. 5-A that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government or the Collector as the case may be, to that effect in writing : Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of the consolidated fund of the State or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. 14. It was submitted by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of the Central Act disclose scheme. Sec. 4 deal with a notification which the Government was required to issue when it appeared to it that land in any locality was needed or was likely to be needed for any public purpose. The said notification had to be published in the manner prescribed by Section 4. Sec. 5-A of the Central Act provides that any person interested in any land which had been notified under Sec. 4 could file his objections within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification. Under Section 6, the Government is required to make a declaration after it is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose. Under Section 6, the Government is required to make a declaration after it is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose. The proviso introduced by the Act 68 of 1984 provided that no declaration shall be made in respect of a land covered by a notification under Sec. 4(1) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Ordinance, 1967, but, before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification. He emphasised that the crucial date in this scheme was the date of the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 of the Central Act. The aforesaid Sec. 4(1) provides for publication of a notification in the official Gazette and also prescribes other modes of publication such as by publication in two daily newspapers one being in a regional language and public notice of the substance of such notification given at convenient places in the locality. In view of the amendment introduced by the Act of 1984, the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice is to be considered to be the date of publication of the notification. Thus, the last of the dates on which the notification is published in any of the manners prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 is the date of publication of the notification relevant for the purpose of filing objections under Sec. 5-A and also for the purpose of computing three years from the date of publication of the notification. Thus the date of publication of a notification under Sec. 4(1) is a crucial date and the proviso to Sec. 6 can be applied only on the basis of the aforesaid date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4(1). On the other hand he submitted that in the State Act, there is no requirement of publication of notification under Sec. 4(1) in > the official Gazette. The notification is required to be published at the office of the Collector, the office of the sub-divisional officer, at the offices of the smallest Revenue Administrative Unit and Gram Panchayat and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated. According to Mr. The notification is required to be published at the office of the Collector, the office of the sub-divisional officer, at the offices of the smallest Revenue Administrative Unit and Gram Panchayat and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated. According to Mr. Ghosh apart from these modes of publication of the notification, one more manner of publication has been prescribed and, that is, that the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. His submission is that service of copies of the notification on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land is also a mode of publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act. He submitted that such being the provision of Sec. 4(1) of the State Act, Section 5-A which provides for filing of objections provides that objections may be filed within thirty days after the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated or of the service of the copy thereof on the objector whichever is later. He submitted that for the purpose of Sec. 5-A of the State Act, other modes of publication were not relevant. Only the publication of notification at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situate, or the service of the copy thereof on the objector is relevant. The date of publication in the official Gazette according to him, has no significance for the purpose of Sec. 5-A of the State Act. He submitted that the scheme of the State Act being what it is, the proviso to Sec. 6 of the Central Act cannot be applied to the State Act because the proviso contemplates a period of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 within which a declaration under Sec. 6 must be made, He submitted that in normal course, the persons interested are to be served with" copies of the notification. Thus, the period of three years has to be calculated by reference to the last date on which any of the persons interested receives a copy of the notification under Sec. 4(1). Thus, the period of three years has to be calculated by reference to the last date on which any of the persons interested receives a copy of the notification under Sec. 4(1). This situation is not at all envisaged by the proviso to Sec. 6 of the Central Act since publication by service of copies of the notification on the persons interested is a mode off publication under Sec. 4(1) of the State Act. The proviso to Sec. 6 cannot be applied since it does not specify the period within which the declaration should be made after the last person interested in the land sought to be acquired, has been served with a CODE of the notification. 15. Having given my anxious consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I have come to the conclusion that the submission, though ingenious, has not force. The State Act does contemplate publication of the notification in the different manners prescribed under the said sub-section. The first part of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 of the State Act provides for publication of the notification at the office of the Collector, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the smallest Revenue Administrative Unit and Gram Panchayat and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated. According to me, these are the only modes of publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4. The latter part of the said sub-section provides for service of the notification on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. The requirement of serving copies of the notification on persons interested does not amount to publication of the notification within the contemplation of either Sec. 5-A or Sec. 6 of the State Act. As noticed earlier Sec. 5-A as amended by the State Legislature provides for filing of objections by a person interested within thirty days after the publication of the notification referred to in the said sub-section at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated, or within thirty days of the service of the copy thereof on the person interested, whichever is later. If the legislature considered service of the notification on persons interested to amount to publication of the notification, it was riot necessary to incorporate in Sec. 5-A(l) the last part of that sub-section which provides for filing of objections within thirty days of the service of the copy thereof on the objector. If service of copy of notification is a mode of publication of the notification, it was not necessary to provide separately in this regard. The latter part of the sub-section would be rendered redundant. Though the date on which copy of a notification is served upon an objector, is relevant for the purpose of computing the period during which an object for may file his objection, the service of such notification on any person interested is not considered to be publication of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4. The publication at the various offices and at some conspicuous place in the village amounts to publication of the notification. The service of copy of the notification on persons interested is merely individual notice or intimation of such notification having been made. It is not publication of the notification. So construed, there is no difficulty in applying the proviso to Section 8 of the Central Act to Sec. 4 of the State Act. The relevant date will be the last date on which the notice was published at the offices of the Collector, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the smallest Revenue Administrative Unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, -or at some conspicuous place in the village. In the instant case, the date of publication of the notification by all these modes is the same namely, 27th June, 1983. Thus, the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act could be issued on or before the 26th June, 1988 Since the declaration was not issued within this period, the proviso to Sec. 6 comes into play and the statute imposes a bar on the exercise of power by the State Government under Section G of the Act making a declaration thereunder. I, therefore, hold that in view of the proviso to Sec. 6 of the Act, the State could not have issued a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act after the 26th June, 1988 since the State was prevented by law from making such a declaration after the 26th of June, 1986. I, therefore, hold that in view of the proviso to Sec. 6 of the Act, the State could not have issued a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act after the 26th June, 1988 since the State was prevented by law from making such a declaration after the 26th of June, 1986. The State cannot be directed to issue such a declaration under Sec. 6 after the said date. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for compelling the State to do something which is prohibited by law. 16. Thereafter it is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that if the State Government delayed in the matter of issuance of declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the laches of the State Government. He submitted that the State should not plead its own laches to defeat the claim of he petitioner. In my view, the question as to who was to blame for the delay is irrelevant. Where a bar operates by operation of law and the State is prohibited from issuing a declaration after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, the bar must operate with full force regardless of the fact as to who was responsible for the delay. In such a situation it would be necessary to issue a fresh notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act and to take all other steps in accordance with law by initiating a fresh proceeding for acquisition of the lands. The whole purpose of the proviso to Sec. 6 is to expedite the acquisition proceeding since in the ultimate analysis such delays greatly harm the person whose lands are sought to be acquired. The aforesaid provision is based on sound public policy and it is designed to achieve an objective. Even if it is assumed that it was the State Government which was guilty for the delay the aforesaid consideration is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the operation of the bar under proviso to Section 6 of the Act. 17. I may notice an objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Even if it is assumed that it was the State Government which was guilty for the delay the aforesaid consideration is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the operation of the bar under proviso to Section 6 of the Act. 17. I may notice an objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It was submitted on their behalf that it is not open to the petitioner contend on the one hand that it is not known when copy of the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 was served last upon any of the land-holders, and on the other hand to ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Bihar to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. Before the petitioner can seek a writ of mandamus for issuance of a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, it must satisfy the Court that a notification under Sec. 4 has been validly made and published and also served upon all the persons interested. The question of issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act will not arise unless a notification under Sec. 4 is first complete in all respects and objections filed under Sec. 5-A are considered. The petitioner itself did not contend that the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued, published and served in the manner contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4. Consequently there can be no question of issuance of a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. Mr. Ghosh replied that the State of Bihar or any of the respondents could not challenge the legality of the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act since they had not filed a writ application challenging the legality of the aforesaid notification. He contended that it must be assumed that the notification under Sec. 4(1) had been validly issued, published and served. But, the last date on which the notification was served upon any of the persons interested was not known. Mr. Chatterjee contended that in the absence of any clear averments, and in the absence of any material on record, it must be assumed that copies of the notification were served upon the persons interested within reasonable time. But, the last date on which the notification was served upon any of the persons interested was not known. Mr. Chatterjee contended that in the absence of any clear averments, and in the absence of any material on record, it must be assumed that copies of the notification were served upon the persons interested within reasonable time. It was not open for the petitioner to contend on the one hand that the date of service of the notification on the persons interested was not known and on the other to contend that the notification had been validly published and served in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. If there was no valid notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, no further action was called for and no declaration could be issued under Sec. 6. Before the petitioner can ask for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to issue a notification under Sec. 6 of the Ac:, it was duty bound first to establish that the notification was published and served in the manner prescribed by Sec. 4(1) of the Act. I have noticed the above submissions in view of the fact that they had been vehemently urged before me at the hearing of this writ application. In my view, before a declaration can be issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner must satisfy the court that all steps required to be taken have been taken in accordance with law. If the petitioner contends that service of copies of notification is the most important mode of publication of notification, and further contends that it is not known when the copies of the notification were served upon the interested parties, it amounts to saying that the requirements of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 have not been complied with. If that be so, there can be no question of issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. However, I have already held that service of copies of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 is not a mode of publication. It is only individual notice or intimation of the notification to the person interested which has already been published by the modes of publication prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid question is not of much significance. It is only individual notice or intimation of the notification to the person interested which has already been published by the modes of publication prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid question is not of much significance. I may only observe that no one has complained that copy of the notification was not served upon any of the persons interested in the lands proposed to be acquired, On the other hand there is evidence on record to establish that the land holders did object and their objections were considered. 18. Mr. Ghosh then contended that the petitioner having executed an agreement and having sent ten copies of the same to the State Government as required, the State Government cannot be permitted to withdraw from the acquisition and not to issue a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. He sought to apply the principle of estoppel or promissory estoppel against the State Government. This submission must also be rejected. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned Government Pleader that no concluded agreement has been executed. The mere fact that the petitioner had signed an agreement, which was never signed on behalf of the State Government, cannot give rise to a binding agreement. No agreement is binding till it has been executed on behalf of the contracting parties. Moreover, there is no question of the application of any principle of estoppel or promissory estoppel since there was nothing to show that the petitioner had acted in response to any representation and had changed its position to its detriment. Moreover, even if such an agreement had been executed before issuance of a declaration under Sec. 6, in view of the specific bar to exercise of authority by the State Government as envisaged by the proviso to Section 6, such an agreement could not be given effect to, as it would have been clearly against the 19. The learned Government Pleader brought to; my notice a decision of this Court reported in 1986 Bihar Law Times 189 Ramakrishna Mission Ashram V/s. Amla Kant Choudhury and Ors.. It was held by this court that even where the subsequent law made by the Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, the subsequent law made by the Parliament shall prevail. It was held by this court that even where the subsequent law made by the Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, the subsequent law made by the Parliament shall prevail. The court was considering the application of the proviso to Sec. 6 which was introduced in the year 1967 by the Central Act imposing a limitation of three years for issuance of a declaration under Sec. 6 after a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 had been made. This court held that the proviso to Sec. 6 did apply to the Act as amended by the Bihar Legislature. Mr. Ghosh did not address any argument on the question as to whether the State law will prevail or whether the Central Law will prevail. He submitted that such a question can arise only in the case of there being any inconsistency or repugnancy between the State law and the Central Law. His submission in the instant case was that there was no inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act. He only submitted that proviso to Sec. 6 of the Central Act in terms could not apply to a notification under section of the Act as amended by the Bihar Legislature. I have already considered his submission earlier in this judgment. But I consider it necessary to notice the submission advanced on behalf of the Government Pleader since the judgment relied upon by him does support his contention that the proviso to Sec. 6 will apply even in relation to a notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, as amended by the Bihar Legislature. But in fairness to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I must observe that the submission urged by him in this application was neither urged nor considered in the decision aforesaid. But for the submission advanced by Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it was not necessary to discuss the matter at such length and the writ application could have been dismissed by simply following the proposition laid down in the case reported in 1986 Bihar Law Times 189 which is binding upon me. 20. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.