Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 498 (PAT)

Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-12

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. By the present application, the three petitioners have challenged the acquisition of land for constructing an approach road connecting a village the population whereof is predominantly of a minority community. The part of the road is passing through their lands. State filed its counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The land in question is situated at Anchal-Sahebganj, Mouza-Nawada in the district of Muzaffarpur. It appears that in 2002. a recommendation was made by the then Mukhiya to the Circle Officer pointing out the necessity of an approach road to connect the village in question to the main road in absence whereof people were having lot of difficulty. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the recommendation was sent to the State Government and the State Government asked the District Collector to proceed with planning and acquiring land for the purposes of the said approach road pursuant whereto notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in September, 2003 wherein it was stated that the persons interested or effected may file their objections within thirty days in terms of Sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector. It is not disputed that notices were also issued individually to khatiyani raiyats in this regard. It appears, pursuant to the notification issued, petitioners filed their objection on 22.9.2003. Pursuant to notices issued again to the khatiyani raiyats, they again filed objections on 27..1.2004 before the Collector of the district. The Collector, without hearing the petitioners or any further notice of hearing given to them, forwarded the objection to the Circle Officer to make a report after local enquiry. It appears the Circle Officer made a local enquiry and submitted his report dated 15.7.2004 to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur which has been appended as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It is not disputed that the report having been submitted, no further steps were taken to hear the petitioners or disclose the report to the petitioners and it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Collector rejected the objections by his order dated 29.7.2004. As no order of the Collector was annexed to the counter affidavit, this Court directed the State to produce the same on a supplementary counter affidavit which has now been filed. 3. As no order of the Collector was annexed to the counter affidavit, this Court directed the State to produce the same on a supplementary counter affidavit which has now been filed. 3. The supplementary counter affidavit discloses that the report having been submitted to the District Land Acquisition Officer (not the Collector of the district), he perused the report and thereafter the order-sheet notes a recommendation that their objections be rejected in view of the report and notification under Sec. 6 be issued. This was then forwarded to the Collector of the district for approval. By order dated 29.7.2004 without any hearing granted to the petitioners nor disclosure of the report to the petitioners, the Collector by one line order approves the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer (Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit). This having been done, notification under Sec. 6 is thereafter published on 23.8.2004. The counter affidavit then states that on 29.10.2004, the Collector, Muzaffarpur gives approval for permanent acquisition of the land in question and it is further stated that on 10.7.2006, the land is delivered to the Circle Officer, Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur for the road to be constructed. This writ application was filed immediately thereafter in October 2006 itself on the petitioners coming to know that their objections had been rejected and notifications issued permanently acquiring their land. 4. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that once the Government decides to acquire land under normal procedure then it has to hear and fairly decide the objections as contemplated under Sec. 5A of the Act. Failure to consider objections validly would render the acquisition proceedings bad inasmuch as without a fair consideration of objection under Sec. 5 no notification under Sec. 6 could have been issued. Therefore, if hearing of objection has not been legally done, the Sec. 6 notification would fall. If Sec. 6 notification falls then automatically Sec. 4 notification would fall as the same has to be followed by notification under Sec. 6 within a specified time. The provisions are mandatory. The consequence would be that the entire acquisition proceedings would stand terminated or dissolved. 5. A reference to the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit clearly shows that the rights of the petitioners were given a complete go-bye while deciding their objections under Sec. 5A of the Act. The provisions are mandatory. The consequence would be that the entire acquisition proceedings would stand terminated or dissolved. 5. A reference to the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit clearly shows that the rights of the petitioners were given a complete go-bye while deciding their objections under Sec. 5A of the Act. Needless to say that Sec. 5A of the Act is a very important safeguard against depriving a person of his property. It has to be scrupulously complied with, in true letters and intent. It is not mechanically to be complied with for the sake of showing compliance. In the present case, objections having been filed and it having been referred for enquiry once enquiry report was received, it was incumbent upon the Collector to disclose the report to the objectors. It was then incumbent upon the Collector of the district to hear the objections. He could not have let the Land Acquisition Officer to deal with the objection by merely preparing office note without notice to the petitioners or without granting hearing to the petitioners. I may point out that the proceedings under Sec. 5A of the Act are quasi judicial in nature not only the petitioners have a right to be heard, they have a right to be told of any enquiry report in relation to the matter obtained. They have then a right to object to the enquiry report. They then have a right to be heard by the Collector of the district who has to take a final decision and pass an independent reasoned speaking order. The matter does not end there. Sec. 5A of the Act is quoted hereunder: 5A. 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 from the date of the publication of notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. 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 notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person by any person authorised by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sec. 4, sub-section (1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government]. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For, the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the lands were acquired under this Act. 6. A bare reference to Sec. 5A would show that the matter does not either begin with Collector or end with the Collector of the district once Collector of the district takes a view on the objection as filed his order is not final. He has then to send the order to the Requisitioning Department which in this case would be Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar. That Department then has to reconsider the matter in light of the objections made, reports received and orders of the Collector and then pass a final order. This order of the State Government on the recommendation of the Collector is the final order and it is only after such an order is passed by the State Government that a notification can be issued under Sec. 6 of the Act. 7. In the present case, the latter part of Sec. 5A of the Act has been given a complete go-bye. The matter was not referred to the State Government nor any order passed by the State Government in this regard. Thus, Sec. 5A has not been complied at all. 7. In the present case, the latter part of Sec. 5A of the Act has been given a complete go-bye. The matter was not referred to the State Government nor any order passed by the State Government in this regard. Thus, Sec. 5A has not been complied at all. That being so, the natural corollary would be that the notification issued under Sec. 6 and all steps taken thereafter are illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of the statute. 8. The question as to what relief is the petitioners entitled in these facts. The facts clearly disclose that Sec. 6 notification was issued in August 2004. Thereafter, awards were prepared. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that some of the persons have accepted the award, the petitioners have not. The lands were then handed over to the Circle Officer in July 2006 for the purposes of constructing the road. In that view of the matter, I find that it would not be in public interest to set aside the entire acquisition proceedings as it relates to a public road. At best if the proceedings were to be set aside, the State had a right to reacquire the same and in such a situation, the petitioners would be entitled to enhanced compensation based on values as obtaining in the present and not values as obtained in original Sec. 4 notification. In that view of the matter, I direct that the award as made should be republished as obtaining from the date of this order as if Sec. 4 notification was made on this date followed by valid notifications and other procedures. In that view of the matter, I do not think it appropriate to set aside the entire acquisition proceedings but only grant a limited relief in terms of monetary relief to the petitioners as aforesaid. 9. With this direction, the writ application stands disposed of.