Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 633 (PAT)

Parmeshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-04-22

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel No. 19 for the State. 2. The petitioners have approached this court for a direction to the respondents not to construct dam in village-Sitab Diyara, P.S. Revelganj, District-Saran and further to quash Annexures-1, 1/A, 5 and 5/A in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 2003-2004, which are the notices under Sections 4 and 9 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . 3. It was the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that against the publication of notices under Section 4 of the Act, Annexures-1 and 1/A, the petitioners and other villagers filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act making various objections against the proposed Scheme and Acquisition. The representations were also made to the Collector, Saran at Chapra on 15.7.2003 and to the Divisional Commissioner. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioners subsequently learnt that the order has been passed under Section 5A of the Act, but despite their best efforts they could not get the certified copy of the said order. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4, an order dated 18.12.2003 of the Additional Collector, Saran passed under Section 5A of the Act has been brought on the record in which he has come to the conclusion that the requisition made with respect to the construction of the dam in question is not correct and, accordingly, he directed the Land Acquisition Officer to make a fresh requisition so that the proceeding for land acquisition may be started afresh. 5. In another counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the stand taken is that against the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Addl. Collector, the matter was taken to the Divisional Commissioner, who held that there was no requirement to change the alignment and the sluice gate will be provided as per need by his order dated 20.9.2004. 6. In another counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the stand taken is that against the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Addl. Collector, the matter was taken to the Divisional Commissioner, who held that there was no requirement to change the alignment and the sluice gate will be provided as per need by his order dated 20.9.2004. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the order of the Commissioner on the ground that in terms of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1960, the objection under Section 5A of the Act is to be heard by the Collector, who has to decide the same and subject to the Government exercising its revisional power and passing an order to the contrary the decision of the Collector under Section 5A of the Act shall be final. It is, thus, submitted that the order of the Commissioner is null and void and wholly without jurisdiction since the Commissioner is not the competent authority to act under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and thus, it is non est in the eye of law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel No. 19 could not show any provision of the Act under which the Commissioner could have acted and taken a decision contrary to what has been decided by the Additional Collector under Section 5A of the Act. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter all the actions of the authorities subsequent to the order dated 18.12.2003 of the Addl. Collector as well as the notice under Section 9 of the Act are contrary to law. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings of Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 2003-04 are quashed. It will be open to the authorities to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law. 10. The writ application is thus allowed with the aforesaid directions and observation.