JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner State as also counsel for the National Thermal Power Corporation, Barh, Patna (herein after referred to as "the NTPC"). 2. Petitioner has raiyati interest in plot nos.1156, 1157 and 1 158, appertaining to khata nos. 305 and 227 of Village Dhibar within Pandarak Block in the district of Patna. He has filed this writ application for quashing the notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6 and notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act published/issued acquiring the aforesaid three plots to the extent of 0.31, 0.21 and 0.11 decimals of land for the purpose of laying the water pipeline for the cooling plant of the super thermal power plant at Barh, Patna. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid three plots were never part of the route map, which was drawn and approved by the corporate office/engineers of the NTPC but on account of influence of the local politicians the officers serving the camp office of the NTPC at Barh, Patna made departure and included the three plots in the route map without the approval of the corporate office/engineers. In this connection, it was pointed out that earlier father of the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 13973 of 2005 on 11.11.2005 praying inter alia to direct the State respondents not to acquire raiyati lands of the petitioner in the aforesaid three plots as the three plots were never part of the route approved by the corporate office/engineers for laying the water pipeline for the cooling plant of the super thermal power plant but the local officers in order to help the local contractor made departure in the route originally approved and included the aforesaid three plots in the route map dated 30.1.2004, which is contained in Annexure-3 to the earlier writ application. 4. The authorities of the NTPC, Barh filed counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ application, which is dated 30.10.2006. In Paragraph Nos. 9. 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit it was stated that the route of the pipeline for the cooling towers of the proposed super thermal power plant at Barh has been designed by the corporate officer/engineers. New Delhi taking into consideration the technical feasibility, ecological factors and economic cost. In Paragraph Nos. 9. 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit it was stated that the route of the pipeline for the cooling towers of the proposed super thermal power plant at Barh has been designed by the corporate officer/engineers. New Delhi taking into consideration the technical feasibility, ecological factors and economic cost. It was further averred that various options were considered and taking into consideration the least human displacement, the design was finalized by the corporate office/engineers at New Delhi and the route map approved by the corporate office/engineers is dated 29.8.2003, which was annexed with the said counter affidavit as Annexure-A. Map, Annexure-A appended with the said counter affidavit, however, did not indicate that the proposed pipeline passed through plot nos. 1156, 1157 and 1158. The Court having noticed such omission in the map dated 29.8.2003 and averment to the contrary made in paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit that acquisition of plot nos. 1156. 1157 and 1158 was sanctioned by the corporate office of NTPC on the basis of which requisition was submitted by the camp office of NTPC, Barh on 20.7.2004, under orders dated 20.11.2006 directed the authorities of the NTPC to file supplementary counter affidavit clarifying the averments made in paragraph nos. 9, 12 and 15 of the said counter affidavit. 5. Before the NTPC could file affidavit in compliance of order dated 20.11.2006, interlocutory application no. 5458 of 2006 dated 4.12.2006 was filed alleging mala fide against Sri K.N. Jha, Manager, NTPC, Barh asserting that the change in the route of the water pipeline was made at the instance of Sri K.N.Jha without the approval of the corporate office/engineers only to serve the interest of some local persons for the reasons best known to Sri Jha. In the interlocutory application prayer was made to implead the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Director, Human Resources, NTPC as party inthe writ case. Further request was also made to implead Sri K.N. Jha by name. Aforesaid interlocutory application was allowed and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Director, Human Resources, NTPC and Sri K.N. Jha were impleaded as respondent nos. 9, 10 and 11. 6. Having filed the interlocutory application supplementary affidavit dated 7.12.2006 was also filed. Further request was also made to implead Sri K.N. Jha by name. Aforesaid interlocutory application was allowed and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Director, Human Resources, NTPC and Sri K.N. Jha were impleaded as respondent nos. 9, 10 and 11. 6. Having filed the interlocutory application supplementary affidavit dated 7.12.2006 was also filed. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit it was asserted by the petitioner that route map dated 30.1.2004 was at the instance of Sri Jha without any authority, approval of corporate officer/engineers for extraneous consideration as also for reasons best known to Sri Jha to serve the interest of some local persons including the interest of Sri Narendra Kumar Singh @ Bogo Singh. 7. Having received and perused the aforesaid interlocutory application and the supplementary affidavit the authorities of the NTPC filed second counter affidavit on 22.1.2007. In paragraph nos. 9, 15, 16 and 19 it was submitted that earlier map dated 29.8.2003 was a tentative design for laying the water pipeline and after undertaking fresh typographical (sic-topographical ?) and hydrological survey conducted by M/s Superintendent Company of India Ltd., another route for the make up water pipeline was drawn, which is contained in map dated 30.1.2004. In paragraph-15 of the said counter affidavit reasons were given in support of drawing up the new route map for laying water pipeline. In paragraph nos.16 and 19 of the said counter affidavit it was categorically stated that the route of the pipeline contained in map dated 30.1.2004 was drawn with the approval of the technical executive wing of the NTPC, Barh and the corporate office. 8. Sri K.N. Jha, who was impleaded as respondent no. 11 also filed his affidavit and in paragraphs-7, 8 and 9 stated that the map dated 30.1.2004 was prepared by the Human Resources wing of the NTPC unit at Barh, which works under the control of the General Manager, NTPC, Barh. In paragraph-14 he, however, clarified that the said map was prepared by the technical wing of the NTPC in consultation with the technical experts at corporate level. 9. In paragraph-14 he, however, clarified that the said map was prepared by the technical wing of the NTPC in consultation with the technical experts at corporate level. 9. This Court having considered the supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.1.2007 as also other affidavits filed on behalf of the authorities of the NTPC dismissed the writ application under orders dated 27.2.2007 observing that having examined the documents on record, the Court was of the considered opinion that in matters involving technical aspect it is the NTPC itself, which is the best judge. The Court has little jurisdiction in the matter unless it is shown that the action smacks of arbitrariness or mala fide. It is only in exceptional and rare case that the court is required to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court do not usurp the jurisdiction of technical authority and sit in appeal over technical decision as an appellate authority. In the present case no reasons are given for changing the route and this Court is not required to interfere. Further it was observed as follows:- "It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that NTPC having taken a stand that Annexure-A to their first counter affidavit was the plan they cannot now change and say that the plan had been changed and it was another plan i.e. the final plan. He further submits that NTPC cannot blow hot and cold in the same proceedings. He further submits that NTPC cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. I am afraid there is serious misapprehension of principle in this regard. Neither NTPC is blowing hot and cold approbately and reprobately to the same thing or the same transaction. They have clearly said that the plan annexed as Annexure-A was dated 29.8.2003 and it was followed by Human Resources Department without being informed that since then water flow down the river and there has been resurvey and redesigning a fresh plan had been prepared on 30.1.2004, according to which NTPC was now acting in this regard, the principle ingrained to apply to the aforesaid facts in the case." After dismissal of the writ application under order dated 27.2.2007 matter was taken in appeal by the father of the petitioner by filing L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007, which was dismissed under orders dated 12.4.2007. After dismissal of the writ application and the L.P.A. filed by the father of the petitioner notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 acquiring the lands in question on the basis of map dated 30.1.2004 was issged on 13.7.2007 and 14.7.2007 and legal possession of the lands in question was taken by the NTPC on 1.12.2007, which is evident from transfer of possession certificate issued in Form-17 contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the NTPC in the present writ application. Once the notification and declaration was issued as also legal possession of the lands in question was taken, petitioner, the son of the earlier writ petitioner filed the present writ application praying inter alia to quash the acquisition of the aforesaid three plots as according to him those plots are not required for public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act and have been included in the route map for laying the water pipeline of the cooling plant to sub-serve the interest of the local people at the instance of Sri K.N. Jha and this Court, in appreciation of the fact that inclusion of the three plots in the route map is not in public interest, should quash the notification and declaration dated 13/ 14.7.2007. 10. Counter affidavit has been filed by the NTPC in paragraph nos. 5 to 13 it has been submitted that the present writ case is barred by principles of constructive res judicata as the same lis has already been considered and dismissed by this Court under orders dated 27.2.2007, which has already been affirmed in appeal under orders dated 12.4.2007 and the same lis may not be considered by this Court once again. It is further submitted that possession of the lands in question having been delivered to the NTPC by the land acquisition authorities of the State on 1.12.2007, this writ application is fit to be dismissed on that ground alone as having delivered possession to NTPC the erstwhile raiyat cannot lay his claim over the lands in question which has been acquired and possession delivered to the authority for which the acquisition was made and the State authorities lack jurisdiction to release the lands in question in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph nos. In paragraph nos. 14, 18, 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit NTPC authorities have justified the change of route vide map dated 30.1.2004 to be in public interest and to ensure least human displacement. 11. By filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit petitioner has disputed the assertion of the NTPC that possession of the lands in question has been taken by the NTPC authorities. It has been further asserted that the stand of the NTPC authorities in the earlier writ petition vide counter affidavit dated 22.1.2007 that change of route made under map dated 30.1.2004 was with the approval of the corporate office is wholly incorrect. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed on 27.2.2007 in reply to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of NTPC on 22.1.2007 in compliance of order dated 20.11.2006 and with reference to averments made in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2007 submitted that the map dated 30.1.2004 was never approved by the corporate office of NTPC, New Delhi, which was the basis for dismissing the earlier writ petition. 12. This Court having appreciated the aforesaid contention under orders dated 3.11.2009 passed in the present writ case called upon the counsel for the NTPC to produce the decision of the corporate office, whereunder the corporate office had approved the change of the route under map dated 30.1.2004. By filing affidavit dated 16.11.2009 NTPC has confirmed the fact that the earlier statement made in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.1.2007 that the route map dated 30.1.2004 was approved by the corporate office is not correct. In this connection it is submitted that corporate engineers had visited the site at Barh before the route map dated 30.1.2004 was drawn and thereby it is presumed that the corporate office has approved the change of route under map dated 30.1.2004 but on record there is no decision of approval by the corporate office in regard to map dated 30.1.2004. In this connection it is further pointed out that the earlier map dated 29.8.2003 was also not approved by the corporate office and in the same manner when the map dated 30.1.2004 was drawn making departure from the earlier route including other plots no approval of the corporate office was taken. In this connection it is further pointed out that the earlier map dated 29.8.2003 was also not approved by the corporate office and in the same manner when the map dated 30.1.2004 was drawn making departure from the earlier route including other plots no approval of the corporate office was taken. By filing affidavit dated 19.11.2009 the authorities of the NTPC placed on record the power of attorney executed by the Board of Directors in favour of the General Manager posted at Barh and with reference to Clause-9 of the said power of attorney, which inter alia empower the General Manager to execute deeds, agreements, bonds and other documents and returns in connection with the affairs of the Company and to file them or cause to be filed for registration whenever necessary, it is submitted that General Manager is empowered to change the route of the water pipeline. Perusal of Clause-9 itself would indicate that General Manager has been empowered to execute deeds, agreements. bonds and other documents after decision to execute such deeds, agreements, bonds and other documents has been taken by the competent authority. It is not that the General Manager is vested with the power to even take such decision as General Manager is only vested with the jurisdiction to execute the decision taken by the competent authority. The NTPC being a Government company constituted under Section 617 of the Companies Act is governed by the decision taken by the Board of Directors or as provided in the Rules of business framed by the company. In this connection, learned counsel for the NTPC produced before me the minutes of the 165th meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Board of Directors held on 19.5.2006, wherefrom it appears that the award of contract for civil works package for cooling water and make up water system for Barh super thermal power plant was awarded by the Sub-Committee of the Board of Directors of NTPC. On the basis of the decision of the Sub-Committee later the authorized signatory signed the formal agreement with the party who was awarded with the contract for civil works. On the basis of the decision of the Sub-Committee later the authorized signatory signed the formal agreement with the party who was awarded with the contract for civil works. With reference to the contract signed by the authorized signatory in the form of a book and produced before this Court, it was submitted that route map dated 30.1.2004 for laying the water pipeline was also part of the contract signed by the authorized signatory and thus it should be taken that the route map dated 30.1.2004 was approved by the Board of Directors. From Paragraph-5 of the affidavit dated 16.11.2009 it appears that the route of the water pipeline was fixed by the site engineers in consultation with the engineers of the corporate office who used to regularly visit the site and monitor the future plant and construction. Aforesaid fact was never brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier writ application, rather under supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.1.2007 filed in compliance of the order dated 20.11.2006, the Court was informed that change of route under map dated 30.1.2004 was with the approval of the corporate office and appreciating such fact this Court under order dated 27.2.2007 dismissed the writ application holding that the change in the route of the water pipeline has been made with the approval of the Human Resources Department of the NTPC. Aforesaid fact was also not brought to the notice of the land acquisition officer. who is the competent authority to apply his mind about the public purpose of the plots included in the requisition for acquisition of lands. 13. The Land Acquisition Officer while considering the validity of the requisition of NTPC should have considered the requisition after posing the question whether the competent authority of the NTPC has considered the aspect of technical feasibility, ecological factors, economic cost and least human displacement before submitting the requisition on the basis of route map dated 30.1.2004 and if satisfied that such aspect was considered by the competent authority of the NTPC then to act on the basis of such requisition. Aforesaid aspect of the matter was not examined by the Land Acquisition Officer, he being a statutory functionary should have examined the requisition on his own by examining as to whether the competent authority of the requisitioning company has considered the aspect of technical feasibility, ecological factors, economic cost and least human displacement before submitting the requisition on the basis of map dated 30.1.2004, failing which Land Acquisition Officer cannot absolve himself of the charge that he acted only as a post office on the basis of the requisition without applying his mind to the requisition. 14. The submission of the counsel for the NTPC that possession of the land has been taken, the writ petition should be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Senjeevanagar Medical & Health Employees Cooperative Housing Society V/s. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Others, reported in (1996)3 Supreme Court Cases 600, Paragraph-12 has been noticed only to be rejected as legal possession having been delivered on 1.12.2007 i.e. after dismissal of the earlier writ petition and L.P.A. on 27.2.2007 and 12..4.2007 and those orders were passed ignoramus of the position that the requisition itself was not approved by the competent authority of the NTPC the delivery of possession effected on paper vide Annexure-C ignoramus of the relevant facts cannot bind the party to his detriment. 15. Having considered the aspects discussed in Paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 above, I was inclined to set aside the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 so far it affects the petitioner but considering the fact that earlier the matter was considered by the Single Judge and also by the Division Bench and the impugned notification/declaration having been issued after dismissal ol the earlier writ petition, I dispose of this writ application with liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the order of the Division Bench dated 12.4.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007 on the grounds which has been noted above in my order and is evident from the affidavit of the NTPC dated 16.11.2009.