ORDER CAs Nos. 1358-63, 1365-73 of 2003 1. In the first round, when these matters came up for hearing before this Court, this Court, having regard to the fact situation and dealing with the legal contentions, disposed of the matters in terms of para 22 of the judgment in Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of BiharI. Para 22 of the said judgment reads thus: (SCC p. 269) "22. Having thus clarified the law governing the field, we would open doors for streams of equities and discretions to enter in the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As observed earlier, we are of the view that the High Court should not have upset the notification under Section 6 of the Act as a whole and should have individualised justice vis-a-vis each writ petitioner before it, having regard to the equities interplaying in each case and to the regulation of its discretion keeping in view host of other factors which weigh with the High Court to deny, grant or mould relief even when illegalities in procedure keep staring. Thus for the view afore expressed, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remit all these matters back to it with the request that though it may take them up as a batch, it may give individual attention to each case, view the illegalities pointed out by the writ petitioner in their right perspective having regard to the time factor and confine the relief, if due, to him separately. We shall not be taken to have controlled the discretion of the High Court in administering individualised justice and amongst others it may, with the cooperation of the Society and of the State Government, as also the writ petitioners examine the possibility of an equitable solution so that the fist of law and the discretion of the court do not hurt unbearably. We thus remit the matters to the High Court without any order as to costs." 2. When the matters went back to the High Court, the High Court passed the impugned judgment in the light of para 22 of the aforementioned judgment. The parties, not being satisfied with the impugned judgment, are before us in these appeals. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. When the matters went back to the High Court, the High Court passed the impugned judgment in the light of para 22 of the aforementioned judgment. The parties, not being satisfied with the impugned judgment, are before us in these appeals. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. In view of the specific directions given in para 22 of the impugned aforementioned judgment, it is clear that the High Court was to dispose of the matters broadly keeping in view the equities in regard to each individual, having regard to the irregularities pointed out and the legal position stated in the said judgment. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has made that exercise of adjusting the equities. In doing so, the High Court could not satisfy all the parties. That is how the matters are before us. 5. Having had the benefit of hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the long-drawn litigation, and taking note of the purpose viz. construction of residential houses, we are of the view that these are matters where the controversies and disputes need to be settled by making equitable adjustment for "individualised justice". 6. Learned counsel for the parties in following appeals: 1. CA No. 1357 of 2003 Ashish Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti v. State of Bihar 2. CA No. 1363 of 2003 Shrishti Kumari Devi v. State of Bihar 3. CA No. 1360 of 2003 Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 4. CA No. 1365 of 2003 Mangalam Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. v. State of Bihar 5. CAs Nos. 1358-59 of 2003 Fulmati Devi v. State of Bihar after due consideration and taking instructions from their clients, submitted that an area of 12.68 acres in all, including the land meant for roads, should be left to the appellants in these appeals. The individual appellants and the members of the societies in these appeals shall adjust this land of 12.68 acres in the following manner: 1. In CA No. 1357 of 2003 Ashish Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti 12.28 acres This 12.28 acres includes the land required by 26+8 members of the Society who have filed separate appeals: (a) In CA No. 1363 of 2003 (26 appellants) 1.9 acres (b) In CA No. 1360 of 2003 (8 appellants) 0.6 acres 2. In CA No. 1357 of 2003 Ashish Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti 12.28 acres This 12.28 acres includes the land required by 26+8 members of the Society who have filed separate appeals: (a) In CA No. 1363 of 2003 (26 appellants) 1.9 acres (b) In CA No. 1360 of 2003 (8 appellants) 0.6 acres 2. In CA No. 1365 of 2003 5 members of Mangalam Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. 00.32 acres 3. In CA No. 1358 of 2003 Appellant Fulmati Devi 00.04 acres 4. In CA No. 1359 of 2003 Appellant Bachchan Prasad Sharma 00.04 acres __________ Total 12.68 acres Less the area (approx.) to be made available for road (a) By the appellant in CA No. 2.50 acres 1357 of 2002 (b) By the appellant in CA No. 1365 of 2003 0.10 -02.60 acres ____________ Actual area for construction of houses 10.08 acres 7. We accept and order accordingly subject to these appellants paying compensation to the extent of 12.68 acres of land as may be determined by the competent authorities/courts. 8. As far as the appellant landowners are concerned, we think it is just and appropriate to allow them to retain totally 5 acres. These appellants are: 1. CA No. 1361 of 2003 Madhusudan Yadav v. State of Bihar 2. CA No. 1362 of 2003 Pandhu Yadav v. State of Bihar 3. CA No. 1366 of 2003 Gulam Sarful Haque v. State of Bihar 4. CAs Nos. 1367-73 of Yamuna Yadav v. State of Bihar 2003 9. The appellants in these four appeals shall be allotted land out of the 5 acres of land proportionate to the extent of their lands under acquisition. The Collector shall distribute the 5 acres of land on this basis but while doing so, the lands on which construction are already made, as far as possible, shall be allotted to the appellants concerned subject to the condition that such constructions do not affect the planned development. However, the Collector is at liberty to make any marginal adjustments in making such allotment to the appellants in these four appeals but subject to not exceeding the extent of 5 acres of land totally. These appellants shall be entitled for a compensation amount as may be determined by the competent authorities/courts only to the extent of the land after deducting 5 acres of land. 10. These appellants shall be entitled for a compensation amount as may be determined by the competent authorities/courts only to the extent of the land after deducting 5 acres of land. 10. The remaining available land, out of the acquired land, shall be allotted to the Bihar State Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society for whose benefit the acquisition of land was made. This Society is liable to pay compensation amount as may be determined by competent authorities/courts in respect of the land to be allotted to them as stated above. 11. The Collector or the authorised officer shall complete the acquisition proceedings in all respects and hand over possession to the parties in terms aforestated within a period of four months from today. 12. The impugned order of the High Court shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. In all other respects, the impugned order shall remain undisturbed. 13. This order does not preclude the competent authority (Patna Regional Development Authority) to proceed in accordance with law with regard to the constructions already made, if they are not in accordance with law. Further, the constructions to be made in the area to be allotted, as stated above, by the parties shall be in accordance with the planned development after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities. 14. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. SLPs (C) Nos. 22605-06 of 2003 15. In view of the disposal of the civil appeals, the special leave petitions also stand disposed of.