Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 129 (PAT)

Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh v. State

2001-02-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Siddheshwar Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel for j the petitioners, and Mr. S.S. Nayar Hussain, learned Government Pleader No. II. 2. The question, which has fallen for determination in this application, is as to whether the impugned award, as contained in annexure-11 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, is an award under the meaning of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") and further as to whether prior approval of the appropriate Government was obtained within the mandatory period prescribed under the law and if not then what would be the effect of the award. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the lands, proposed to be acquired, were notified under section 4 of the Act on 25.5.1982 and thereafter declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 14.11.1984 and after introduction of section 11A of the Act the authorities hurriedly passed the award on 23.9.1986, as contained in annexure 11, without prior approval of the appropriate Government. Learned counsel further submitted that it would be manifest from annexure 11 of the Act that the impugned award was passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger, even though he had no jurisdiction to do so, as he was not specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the function of a Collector under the Act. It is further submitted that it is also evident from order dated 11.9.1986 that prior approval was not obtained for making the award as required under section 11 of the Act and as the proceeding was to be governed under section 11A of the Act, hurriedly the award was passed. Section 3(c) of the Act reads thus: "3(c). The expression "Collector" means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act." Ex facie, it appears from the impugned annexure that the award has not been passed either by the Collector of the District or by the Additional Collector, rather it has been passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, who is not the authority to do so under the provisions of section 3{c) of the Act. It is also manifest from the impugned orders, particularly order dated 11.9.1986 that prior approval as required under section 11 of the Act was not obtained. Section 11-A of the Act reads: as follows: "11-A. Period within which an award shall be made.(1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the (and shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.In computing the period of two years referred to in this Section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded." 4. Learned Government Pleader II, appearing on behalf of the State,: however, is not disputing the legal aspect of the matter, as discussed above, and he has very fairly submitted that the mandates of law were not followed and despite his best efforts, he has not received any instruction from the concerned respondents. He further submitted that the District Land Acquisition Officer is not the Collector as notified under section 3(c) of the Act. 5. In the light of the discussions aforesaid, and in view of the provisions, as noticed above, I will have no hesitation to hold that the District Land Acquisition Officer, respondent. no. 5, was not the competent authority to pass the award and there was no prior approval of the State Government for passing of the award as required under section 11 of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned award must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction. 6. Since the award is not in existence in the eye of law, as noticed above, it is further held that the proceeding under the provisions of the Act has lapsed by virtue of section 11-A of the Act, as no award has been prepared within the statutory period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration, and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding as lapsed. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of State of U.P. and ors. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of State of U.P. and ors. vs. Rajiv Gupta and anr. [(1994)5 Supreme Court Cases, 686]. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question. 8. For the aforesaid reasons/observations, this application is allowed and the award dated 23.9.1986, as contained in annexure 11, arising out of land Acquisition Case No. 1/82-83 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.