Judgment 1. The questions involved in alt the four appeals are the same and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 1443 of 1996 filed by respondent Kanhai Rai and 19 others, C.W.J.C. No. 2104 of 1996 filed by respondent Smt. Rameshwari Devi and C.W.J.C. No. 2586 of 1996 filed by respondent Krishna Murari Yadav and four others, out of which L.P.A. Nos. 902 of 1999, 903 of 1999 and 911 of 1999 respectively arise, were disposed of by a common order dated 25.6.1999, by which the prayers made on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondents were allowed and a direction was issued restraining the appellant Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) and the Budha Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the Society) from forcibly evicting the writ petitioners from their respective pieces of land. The writ petitioner-respondents were also directed to make applications before the Authority or the concerned Society and on such applications being made, the Authority and the Society would make formal allotment of the respective pieces of land in their favour. The Authority and the Society would be entitled to the proportionate refund the money from the State Government deposited by them for the acquisition of the said land. 3. C.W.J.C. No. 3203 of 1996 filed by Smt. Godawari Devi, out of which L.P.A. No. 1317 of 1999 arises, was dismissed on the ground that her case was not, similar to the case of the writ petitioners of the aforesaid three cases. 4. 3. C.W.J.C. No. 3203 of 1996 filed by Smt. Godawari Devi, out of which L.P.A. No. 1317 of 1999 arises, was dismissed on the ground that her case was not, similar to the case of the writ petitioners of the aforesaid three cases. 4. The writ petitioners in all the said four writ applications challenged a general notice issued by the Respondent-Collector, Patna, on 20.12.1995 asking the owners of the land to receive the Award prepared in Land Acquisition Case No. 63 of 1961-62 for the land acquired for the Authority and the Society (a copy of the said general notice was annexed as one of the Annexures in the writ applications) and for a further direction to treat the land claimed by the writ petitioners to have been released from acquisition on the ground that they have purchased the same In an auction held under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act in a certificate case by the Sub-Divisional Officer on behalf of the Collector, Patna, for realisation of the estate duty from the estate of Dwarika Mahto, to whom the land, admittedly, belonged before acquisi tion by the State and for further directionto the respondent-State authority not to disturb or interfere with their possession of the land. Some of the writ petitioners are purchasers from the auction purchasers. 5. The land, subject matter of dispute, is a valuable land and is situated in Muhalla Dujra, which is a part of the town of Patna. Admittedly, the land belonged to one Dwarika Mahto, resident of Muhalla Lodipur, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna, who died in 1965 leaving behind his widow. The land was acquired by the State Government along with other land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Numerous litigations had cropped up in past with regard to the acquisition of land, which will be detailed later on. Some of them were by the persons claiming to be the owners of the land in question. It has now been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that the land was acquired in accordance with law and possession was handed over to the Authority and the Society long back on 11.7.1962 and 6.8.1962. 6. After the death of aforesaid Dwarika Mahto, a sum of Rs. It has now been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that the land was acquired in accordance with law and possession was handed over to the Authority and the Society long back on 11.7.1962 and 6.8.1962. 6. After the death of aforesaid Dwarika Mahto, a sum of Rs. 13,09,327/- was determined as the dues of estate duty payable by his heirs and on the request of the Controller of Estate Duty, a certificate case was initiated in the year 1969 for realisation of the dues of the estate duty against the widow of Dwarika Mahto and in that certificate proceeding, the writ petitioner-respondents of the three appeals (LP.A. Nos. 902, 903 and 911, all of 1999) claimed to have purchased the same in auction sale. Some land of Dwarika Mahto in an auction sale was also purchased by one Rabindra Kumar, from whom the appellant of L.P.A. No. 1317/99 claimed to have purchased the land. By virtue of the said sales, the writ petitioners claim to have acquired title and possession over the land and the [earned Single Judge having taken into consideration the said fact has restrained the Authority and the Society from disturbing the possession of writ petitioner- respondents of the said three appeals and rejected the ciaim of the appellant of LP.A. No. 1317/1999. 7. To appreciate the points involved in these appeals, the facts regarding land acquisition proceeding have to be stated in detail. The Society was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act in 1958 and in 1959 it requested the State Government to acquire the land in Dujra and Rajapur for the purpose of providing land to the members of the Society. 25.09 acres of land was acquired by the State Government for the. Society by following a normal procedure and possession was handed over to it on 11.7.1962. The Society again requested for acquisition of 32.48 acres of land for the said purpose and a notification under section 4, read with section 17(4) of the Act (Emergency Acquisition) was issued on 4.2.1959. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 4.5.1969. The persons, whose land was acquired, challenged the acquisition in this Court by filing a writ petition, which was allowed on 2.4.1960 and the notification under the Act was quashed, with a direction to initiate a fresh proceeding. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 4.5.1969. The persons, whose land was acquired, challenged the acquisition in this Court by filing a writ petition, which was allowed on 2.4.1960 and the notification under the Act was quashed, with a direction to initiate a fresh proceeding. The said judgment is reported in the case of Deolall Rai V/s. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1960 Patna 413. In the meantime, the Patna Improvement Trust (now the Authority) made a request to the State Government for acquisition of 64.48 acres of land in Dujra and Rajapur, which include also 32.48 acres of land, which was acquired earlier and the notification with regard to the same was quashed by this court with a further direction to initiate a fresh proceeding. On 6.8.1961, a fresh notification under the Act was issued for acquiring 57.71 acres of land of the Authority. There was understanding between the Society and the Authority that out of that land, 32.48 acres should be given to the Society. A declaration under section 6 of the Act with regard to the said land was issued. On 6.8.1962, possession of 57.71 acres of land was given to the Authority and later on the Authority gave possession of 32.48 acres to the Society. Some of the persons, whose land were being acquired, filed M.J.C. No. 65 of 1962 challenging the said acquisition, but the same was withdrawn on 1.7.1964. The Society deposited money with the Authority in 1965. On 18.1.1972 the Government of Bihar directed the Collector not to prepare Award with regard to the acquired land till the full amount of compensation was paid by the Authority. One Ajodhya Bhagat and others challenged the acquisition proceeding in C.W.J.C. No. 812 of 1967, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 8.5.1968. Ajodhya Bhagat challenged the judgment of this court before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and the said judgment is reported in the case of Ayodhya Bhagat V/s. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1886. 8. On 14.8.1981 the Authority passed a resolution not to acquire the entire land, except those lands which were required for the purpose of construction of road and on that basis two Awards were prepared on 13.3.1982 for 4.47 acres and 3.32 acres and for which compensation amount was paid by the Authority. 8. On 14.8.1981 the Authority passed a resolution not to acquire the entire land, except those lands which were required for the purpose of construction of road and on that basis two Awards were prepared on 13.3.1982 for 4.47 acres and 3.32 acres and for which compensation amount was paid by the Authority. No Award was prepared with regard to the remaining land. The Society having been aggrieved by the attitude of the Authority filed C.W.J.C. No. 3241 of 1982 before this court against the State of Bihar and others challenging the said resolution of the Authority dated 14.8.1981 wherein the Authority requested the State Government to take steps for de-requisition of the land other than acquired for the purpose of construction of roads. A Division Bench of this court disposed of the matter on 23.5.1994 and held that once the acquisition has been made and possession has been handed over, the Government cannot withdraw the scheme and the acquisition cannot be nullified for not passing the Award and, accordingly, quashed the resolution of the Authority dated 14.8.1981 and directed the Collector to prepare the Award. In that case, the interveners appeared claiming to have purchased the land from the erstwhile owners. They claimed that they have constructed buildings after approval of the maps by the Authority. Their claim was also negatived. It was held that the encroachment and unauthorised constructions would not confer any right on them for the reason that the land had already vested in the Government and the possession taken over long back. The said judgment was challenged by the aggrieved persons before the Apex Court in S.L.P., which was dismissed on 23.9.1984. In pursuance of the direction issued by this court, which was upheld by the Apex Court, an Award was prepared by the Collector, Patna. 9. Then another round of litigation started. Four writ applications were filed before this court C.W.J.C. No. 6373/1988 was filed by the Society against the State of Bihar and C.W.J.C. Nos. 8426/1988, 9000/1989 and 3729/1990 were filed by either the owners of the lands or purchasers from some of the owners, which were subject matter of land acquisition proceedings in question. Then another round of litigation started. Four writ applications were filed before this court C.W.J.C. No. 6373/1988 was filed by the Society against the State of Bihar and C.W.J.C. Nos. 8426/1988, 9000/1989 and 3729/1990 were filed by either the owners of the lands or purchasers from some of the owners, which were subject matter of land acquisition proceedings in question. The Society filed the said writ application for a direction to respondent-State of Bihar and the Authority to immediately have over the vacant land out of the lands forming subject matter of the writ application to the Society and to complete the land acquisition proceedings. Further prayer was made that effective steps should be taken by the respondents to see that there was no further encroachment and/or construction on the vacant land. Other three writ applications were filed by the owners of the land or purchases from some of the owners after acquisition, claiming that they have made construction over the land. They challenged the entire land acquisition proceedings on the ground that they have lapsed in view of the provision of section 11-A of the Act. All the four writ applications were disposed of by a Division Bench of this court on 30.7.1993. The writ application filed by the Society was. allowed in part and a direction was issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to sign and complete the Award in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in Form-15 and take further steps in pursuance of section 12 of the Act. Other writ applications were dismissed. 10. The judgment of this court was challenged before the Apex Court by Awadh Behari Yadav & Others and Sitaram Gopa and others, whose writ applications were dismissed by this court and the Apex Court dismissed the appeals by the judgment dated 31.8.1995, which is reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 122. While dismissing the S.LPs. the Apex Court observed in paragraph 12 as follows : "All the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants fail. The appeals are wholly without merit and we dismiss them with costs. It is distressing to note that the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated for a very laudible purpose more than 37 years ago, is not yet complete. the Apex Court observed in paragraph 12 as follows : "All the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants fail. The appeals are wholly without merit and we dismiss them with costs. It is distressing to note that the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated for a very laudible purpose more than 37 years ago, is not yet complete. At one point of time, it was brought to the notice of the Court that even the files relating to the acquisition of land are not traceable. The High Court was constrained to hold, on an earlier occasion, that non- traceability of the files must be attributed to deliberate destruction of the relevant files by the "interested parties", and "but for the intervention of influential persons", the Government would not have stayed the entire proceedings as it did on 3.5.1965. We are constrained to observe that the hands of the interested parties seem to be still active, and the intervention of such influential persons has not disappeared [A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1886 (1888)]. A laudible and noble cause is delayed for more than three decades under one pretext or the other. We express our anguish in the entire episode. We, therefore direct the State of Bihar, its officials, the authorities and other persons concerned, who are seized of the subject matter of the instant land acquisition proceeding, to complete the proceedings in the quickest possible time. We . further direct the appellants in these appeals to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of these appeals, towards the Advocates fee for the Society." 11. After controversy with regard to the acquisition proceeding came to an end, the Collector took steps, proposed award and issued notice, which was published in the daily newspaper on 20.12.1995 asking the owners to take the amount of Award in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Case No. 63 of 1961-62. 12. At this stage, it is necessary to state, in brief, the case of the writ petitioner-respondents in the aforesaid three appeals and the appellant in L.P.A. No. 1317 of 1999. Writ petitioner- respondents of L.P.A. No. 902 of 1999, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 1443/96 claimed plot no. 714, writ petitioner-respondent of L.P.A. No. 903/99, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 2104/96 claimed plot no. 869 writ petitioner-respondents of L.P.A. No. 911/99 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 2586/96 claimed plots no. Writ petitioner- respondents of L.P.A. No. 902 of 1999, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 1443/96 claimed plot no. 714, writ petitioner-respondent of L.P.A. No. 903/99, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 2104/96 claimed plot no. 869 writ petitioner-respondents of L.P.A. No. 911/99 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 2586/96 claimed plots no. 478, 492 and 614 and appellant of L.P.A. No. 1317/99 claimed plot nos. 248 and 249. All these plots, admittedly, belonged to aforesaid Dwarika Mahto and were subject matter of acquisition. In the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings, the said plots were acquired and possession thereof was given long back to the Authority in 1962 and later on part of the possession of the same was given to the Society. Their claim is that after the death of Dwarika Mahto, a sum of Rs. 13,09,327/- was determined as the dues of the estate duty by the Controller of Estate, for which Certificate Case No. 1237 of 1969-70 was initiated before the District Certificate Officer against the heirs of Dwarika Mahto. Advertisements were issued in the newspapers on different dates and the writ petitioner-respondents in the aforesaid three cases purchased the same in the auction sale held on different dates and the sale certificates were issued and they were put in possession. 13. The writ petitioner-respondents of L.P.A. No. 911/99 claimed that they purchased 15 kathas of land bearing plot no. 614 in an auction sale heid on.11.4.1980 for Rs. 1,65,000/- and remaining 13 kathas of land of said plot was purchased by one Bharat Singh. They further purchased 4 & 1/2 kathas of land out of 8 kathas of plot no. 492 for Rs. 28,520/- in an auction held on 14.12.1986 and plot no. 478 in an auction held on 29.12.1986 for Rs. 41,500/- and the sale certificates were issued with regard to all the sales and they were put in possession. The writ petitioners of L.P.A. No. 902 of 1999 claimed to have purchased the land in an auction held on 11.4.1980 pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.3.1980. They purchased 23 & 1/2 kathas of land of the aforesaid plot no. 740 for Rs. 3,06,000/-. The claim of writ petitioner-respondent of L.P.A. No. 903 of 1999 is that plot no. 869, measuring 3 kathas 10 dhurs was purchased by one Jai Krishna Singh in an auction sale held on 14.12.1986 for Rs. They purchased 23 & 1/2 kathas of land of the aforesaid plot no. 740 for Rs. 3,06,000/-. The claim of writ petitioner-respondent of L.P.A. No. 903 of 1999 is that plot no. 869, measuring 3 kathas 10 dhurs was purchased by one Jai Krishna Singh in an auction sale held on 14.12.1986 for Rs. 32,500/- and was put in possession and sale certificate was issued. She claims to have purchased the said land from said Jai Krishna Singh by a registered deed dated 15.7.1995. 14. The claim of appellant of L.P.A. No. 1317 of 1999 is that Barti Devi, wife of Dwarika Mahto gifted 12 kathas 10 dhurs of land of plots no. 248 and 249 to her relatives. They sold 5 kathas 9 dhurs of land to one Balbhadra Prasad Singh by a registered sale-deed dated 17.1.1973. Said Balbhadra Prasad Singh died in the year 1979. By two sale-deeds executed on 9.3.1990 and 30.4.1990, the two sons of Balbhadra Prasad Singh, namely, Kesho Prasad Singh and Shatrughna Prasad Singh sold the said land, including house over plots no. 248 and 249 to the appellant and put her in possession and in the meantime one Rabindra Kumar also claimed to have purchased the land in auction sale held for realisation of estate duty in December, 1986 and to avoid litigation she purchased the land from Rabindra Kumar on 28.2.1995. 15. Their claim is that they have constructed their houses and some of them have claimed that maps were passed by the Authority and then they have constructed their houses. 16. It appears that the auction sale in the certificate case, which was held on 11.4.1980, was challenged by one Ram Ajodhya Singh claiming himself to be relative of Dwarika Mahto by filing C.W.J.C No. 1187 of 1982, which was dismissed on 9.4.1985. He also filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 6233 of 1985, which was also dismissed on 10.10.1985. 17. The conclusion, which emerges from the narration of the aforesaid facts, is that the lands, claimed by the writ petitioners, were acquired under the provisions of the Act and the possession had already been delivered to the Authority and the Society and all the objections including that of erstwhile owners or their purchasers or unauthorised occupants have been negatived. 17. The conclusion, which emerges from the narration of the aforesaid facts, is that the lands, claimed by the writ petitioners, were acquired under the provisions of the Act and the possession had already been delivered to the Authority and the Society and all the objections including that of erstwhile owners or their purchasers or unauthorised occupants have been negatived. Steps have been taken in pursuance of the direction issued by the order of this court to remove the encroachment or unauthorised occupation from the acquired land. In such a situation, it has to be seen whether the writ petitioners can be said to have acquired right, title and interest in the land, which has already vested in the Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, by virtue of their purchase in the certificate proceedings initiated for realisation of the estate duty regarding estate of Dwarika Mahto. 18. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents in the said three appeals and the appellant in L.P.A. No. 1317 of 1999 submitted that the lands acquired under the Act shall be deemed to have been released under Section 48 of the Act in view of the subsequent development, namely, the sale of the lands in the certificate case initiated for recovery of the estate duty against the heirs of late Dwarika Mahto. It was further submitted that they have already constructed houses over the same and according to them they had got the maps passed by the authorities concerned and as such the authorities should be stopped from claiming the lands by virtue of their conduct. If any direction is issued to remove them at this stage, then that will cause loss and injury to them in view of they having spent huge amount of money in construction of the buildings after having purchased the land in auction sale. 19. The learned Single Judge negatived the claim of the writ petitioners that the land will be deemed to have been released from acquisition, but taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and possibly the loss and injury of the writ petitioners of the said three writ applications issued the aforesaid directions. 20. 19. The learned Single Judge negatived the claim of the writ petitioners that the land will be deemed to have been released from acquisition, but taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and possibly the loss and injury of the writ petitioners of the said three writ applications issued the aforesaid directions. 20. The law is well-settled that the powers of withdrawal of the land from acquisition proceeding vests in the Government under section 48 of the Act, but that power is to be exercised by issuance of a notification denotifying the acquisition of land. If the land has been vested in pursuance of a land acquisition proceeding, any other action or conduct by the acquisitioning authority cannot be treated to be a withdrawal of the land from the acquisition. Once the possession of the land is taken free from all encumbrances the consequences of vesting cannot be obliterated by any act of the owner, or by any person authorised by him or by any person claiming himself to have any interes t in the land. 21. Admittedly, in these cases, no notification under section 48 of the Act has been issued denotifying the acquisition. It is clear that the final seal has been put to the acquisition of the land and the land has vested in the Authority and the Society and the possession was taken long back and as such Dwarika Mahto, who admittedly died after taking over possession of the land, ceased to have any interest in the land involved in the present proceeding. As the land did not belong to Dwarika Mahto or to his heirs when the same was put in auction for sale, purchase of the same by the writ petitioners did not confer any right, title and interest in them. The upholding of the sale in auction by this court and dismissal of S.L.P. against the order of this court by the Apex Court only means that there was no defect in the auction sale proceeding in the certificate case regarding the land allegedly belonging to to Dwarika Mahto. There was no adjudication on the point that the said land belonged to Dwarika Mahto. There was no adjudication on the point that the said land belonged to Dwarika Mahto. The land had already vested in the Authority and the Society under the provision of the Act and as such on the date of auction sale the land did not belong to late Dwarika Mahto or his heirs. 22. Thus, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was no deeming withdrawal of the land from acquisition and the purchase made by the writ petitioners in the auction held in the certificate case did not confer any right, title and interest on them and on that basis they cannot claim any right in their favour. 23. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and discretionary one. It is a remedy in public law and its object is that the law of the land is obeyed. No writ can be issued to the authority to act contrary to law or the decision of the court having attained finality. No direction can be issued to the authority to violate the law. Sympathy and benevolence have some role in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but it cannot be used for the purpose of defeating the orders of the court. Too much sympathy and benevolence on the ground of sufferings to the persons having no right in law may create an impression that the vested interests have succeeded in stalling the land acquisition proceeding as noticed by this court and the Apex Court in the earlier judgments. Admittedly, a large number of persons have encroached upon the land after its vesting and taking benefits of the order passed in the three cases under appeal, other unauthorised persons or encroachers will claim to remain possession or will rush to this court for similar relief. 24. The acquisition and possession have been upheld by this court and the Apex Court as indicated above. The claims of the erstwhile owners, purchasers from them and the encroachers on the ground of they having constructed their houses after the maps being approved by the Authority have been negatived and steps have been taken in pursuance of the direction issued by the court to remove the unauthorised occupation after taking recourse to the encroachment proceeding. The claims of the erstwhile owners, purchasers from them and the encroachers on the ground of they having constructed their houses after the maps being approved by the Authority have been negatived and steps have been taken in pursuance of the direction issued by the court to remove the unauthorised occupation after taking recourse to the encroachment proceeding. In such a situation, the writ petitioners, who fall in the same category of persons having no right, title and interest in the lands by virtue of purchase are not entitled to be given protection by this court. Taking their case as a special case will amount to ignoring the directions of this court as well as that of the Apex Court. In other words, direction not to evict the writ petitioners by the Authority in pursuance of the direction issued by this court will be counter to the earlier directions issued by this court and the Supreme Court. 25. Once it has been found that the writ petitioners have no right, title and interest in the land in question on the basis of purchases in auction sale even if they have made constructions over the same, they do not deserve any sympathy from this court as there is every reason to believe that they purchased in auction sale with the knowledge that the land has already vested in the concerned Authority long before as a result of land acquisition proceeding. The Apex Court in the case of Awadh Behari Yadav (supra) observed that the hands of influential persons are still active and interactions of such influential persons have not disappeared. Thus, no case for issuance of any writ in their favour is made out. 26. In the result, the three appeals (L P. A. Nos. 902, 903 & 911 all of 1999) are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. L.P.A. No. 1317 of 1999 is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld.