Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1068 (PAT)

Ranjit Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-26

S.K.KATRIAR

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ripu Daman Prasad Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Abbas Haider, learned Junior counsel to learned Government Pleader No.11 for respondent nos. 1 to 6, and Mr. T.N. Maitin for respondent no.7. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue appropriate writ or direction, quashing the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by respondent no.4 (the Collector, Muzaffarpur), and also the order dated 20.5.2003, passed by authorities under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), taking over possession of the lands in question under section 16 to the Act. 2. It relates to acquisition of certain lands including Plot nos. 2196, 2190, apart from other plots belonging to the petitioner, for laying down a road in Mushahari Anchal at the juncture of two villages, namely Manika Harikesh and Naya Gaon, district Muzaffarpur. It is further stated in the writ petition that the said two plots cover an area 4 decimals, out of which two decimals have already been acquired by aforesaid order dated 20.5.2003 (Annexure-8) after completing the process of acquisition under the Act. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land has been acquired and the road is being let out entirely for the benefit of respondent no.7 (Upendra Tiwary), is not for public purpose and is, therefore, in violation of section 4 of the Act. He further submits that notice of the land acquisition proceeding was not served on the petitioner. He has also submitted that the lands are sought to be acquired for benefit of a little more than 100 persons, which is in contravention of letter no. 2414 dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-7), wherein it is stated that the land should not be acquired unless it will benefit more than 250 persons. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has supported the impugned action. He submits that notice was duly served on the petitioner who at the initial stage has refused to accept the same but later on had filed objection which was duly considered by the respondent authorities which has been overruled. He next submits that the entire procedure described in the Act has been duly followed and thereafter possession of the lands have been taken over. Therefore, the writ petition is hit by delay. He next submits that the entire procedure described in the Act has been duly followed and thereafter possession of the lands have been taken over. Therefore, the writ petition is hit by delay. He next submits that the issue relating to public purpose will be covered by section 4 of the Act, rather than the aforesaid letter no. 2414, dated 27.11.2002 which was meant to meet a particular situation. In any case, the same cannot overrule the provisions of the Statute. 5. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned action. He has produced the original records before this Court which shows that notices were duly served on the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioners objection was duly considered by the authorities under the Act. He also submits that the order of the Collector dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-7 to the petitioners reply) is not Government policy, and may have been issued in a particular situation. He further submits that the writ petition is hit by delay. He lastly submits that the petitioner has taken an inconsistent stand. He has made out a case in the writ petition that the scheme was made to benefit respondent no.7 alone, whereas he has later on changed his case and has taken the stand that the scheme will presently benefit a little more than 100 persons. In any way, the scheme is for public purpose and is covered by section 4 of the Act. 6. I have perused the materials on record as well as photo copy of the original records produced before me by the learned Government Counsel and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. l first of all take up issue relating to service of notice upon the petitioner. It appears from photo copy of the original records produced before me that the notice was sought to be served on the petitioner on 21.7.2002 which he had refused to accept. The requisite endorsement of the process server on the notice is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. ****Local Language***** It further appears to me from the record that the petitioner had appeared before the learned Collector of the district and filed his objection. The requisite endorsement of the process server on the notice is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. ****Local Language***** It further appears to me from the record that the petitioner had appeared before the learned Collector of the district and filed his objection. Taking note of the same, the learned Collector had passed order that he shall personally make spot inspection and ultimately passed order on 26.4.2003 that let the Additional Collector make spot inspection, consider the petitioners objection and submit its report. The Additional Collector had made a local inspection and recorded his note dated 30.4.2003 which in substance stated that creation of passage is in public interest. The preceding note dated 25.1.2003 had also stated that laying down of the road will benefit more than 100 persons. This has to be read with the relevant statement made in that behalf in the counter affidavit of the respondents. I am thus of the view that notice was duly served on the petitioner which he had at the initial stage refused to accept but had ultimately appeared before the learned Collector and submitted his objections which were considered in accordance with law and overruled. 7. The respondent authorities have rightly concluded that the project is in public interest and will benefit more than 100 persons at the present stage and is covered by the provisions of section 4 of the Act. In that view of the matter the very basis of the petitioners case that it was only for the benefit of respondent no.7 goes. When the sub-stratum has gone where is the question of the super-structure. Law is well settled that courts are always reluctant to interfere with development projects. The legislature in its wisdom has vested the jurisdiction in the authorities under the Act to determine "Public interest" and this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the exercise of that judgment unless it is shown to be palpably illegal. The petitioner has not been able to make out any such case. This Court is convinced that acquisition of lands is for a public purpose. The scheme which would benefit more than 100 persons today may benefit many more persons in future. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents are right in submitting that the writ petition is hit by delay. The petitioner has not been able to make out any such case. This Court is convinced that acquisition of lands is for a public purpose. The scheme which would benefit more than 100 persons today may benefit many more persons in future. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents are right in submitting that the writ petition is hit by delay. Possession of the lands have already been taken over by the respondent- authorities in terms of Section 16 of the Act by order dated 20.5.2003 (Annexure-8), and the scheme has made headway. 9. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.