Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 721 (PAT)

Jethan Bhuiyan v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-10

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Petitioners earlier filed application for quashing the grant of administrative sanction by respondent no. 4 the District Magistrate, Gaya for acquisition of land situated in village Shri Rampur for construction of the "approach road". However during the pendency of the writ application acquisition proceeding has come to an end and the land belonging to the petitioners have been acquired and accordingly, their prayer is to quash the acquisition. 2. In view of the order, which I propose to pass in the writ application, I deem it inexpedient to give a detail facts of the case. 3. Suffice it to say that respondent nos. 10 to 13 herein filed CWJC No. 203 of 2004 before this Court, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate to acquire the land for the purpose of completion of the village approach road from Dak Baba (Danapur) Shri Rampur to Bhujaui. By order dated 26.7.2004 the writ application was disposed of with a direction to conclude the land acquisition proceeding, if already not concluded, within a period of two months. The aforesaid order was passed in view of the stand taken by. the respondents in the writ petition that the proposal for acquisition of land for approach road is pending for final order. 4. Thereafter it seems that a notification (Annexure 14) under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the daily Newspaper on 2nd of November, 2005. Petitioners filed objection as contemplated under Sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming to be the owners of a portion of land acquired and contending that it is not required for public purpose. By order dated 22.12.2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 2005-2006 the Collector under the Act rejected the objection raised by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act only on the ground that in view of the order of this Court the land acquisition proceeding is to be completed within specified time. After rejection of the objection the Collector under the Act proceeded with the land acquisition proceeding and ultimately acquired the land and given award. 5. Mr. After rejection of the objection the Collector under the Act proceeded with the land acquisition proceeding and ultimately acquired the land and given award. 5. Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that various objections were raised by the petitioners in their petition filed under Section 5A of the Act but without entering into its merit the Collector under the Act rejected the objection only on the ground that in view of the order of this Court the land acquisition proceeding is to be concluded within specified time. 6. Additional Advocate General No. Ill as also Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 13 contend that as the land acquisition proceeding has already concluded and the land acquired, petitioners objection can be considered by the Additional Collector afresh but on that ground alone, acquisition proceeding subsequent to the order dated 22.12.2005 is not fit to be quashed. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. It is only after the order of this Court dated 26.7.2004 notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was published in the Newspaper on 2nd of November, 2005. Petitioners filed objection raising several pleas opposing the acquisition and contending that the land belonging to them is not meant for public purpose. The Collector under the Act, by order dated 22.12.2005 without entering into the merit of the objection rejected the same only on the ground that land acquisition proceeding has to be concluded within specified period in view of the order of this Court. This approach of the Collector looks quirk to me. When this Court directed the authority to conclude the acquisition proceeding within stipulated time it implied that objection if filed shall be decided in accordance with law and will not be rejected only on the ground that acquisition proceeding is to be concluded within stipulated time. This order cannot be considered to mean that the authority was permitted to proceed with the land acquisition proceeding without following the requirement of law. The Collector under the Act should have decided the objection on merit, he miserably failed to do so the same and that itself vitiates the said order. As a result thereof all proceedings subsequent to the order dated 22.12.2005 is vitiated in law. 8. The Collector under the Act should have decided the objection on merit, he miserably failed to do so the same and that itself vitiates the said order. As a result thereof all proceedings subsequent to the order dated 22.12.2005 is vitiated in law. 8. Petitioners undertake that they shall appear before the Additional Collector on 30th of April, 2007. On the said date he will fix the date for hearing of the objection and thereafter take decision on that on merit within eight weeks thereafter. 9. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in regard to the merit of the objection and that shall be decided by the Collector under the Act in accordance with law. 10. In the result the application is allowed, order dated 22.12.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Gaya in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 2005-2006 is quashed and all proceedings subsequent thereto are held to be non est so far as these petitioners are concerned with further direction to both the parties to act in accordance with the directions contained hereinbefore. 11. No cost.