Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1491 (PAT)

Bal Govind Prasad v. State of Bihar

2010-07-08

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar and party respondent in this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his lands were distributed to persons displaced due to Bagmati Project several years back without giving any compensation. 4. The petitioner claims that his father was settled the lands appertaining to Khata No. 24 (old), 98 (new), Plot No. 290 (old), 728 (new), area 5 acres 26 decimals situated at village Ramdasi, Ps Rajauli, District Nawadah. The petitioner’s case is that the ex-landlord had filed return showing the lands in the name of father of the petitioner. During the revisional survey the lands came to be recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and thereafter the State distributed the lands treating the lands as belonging to the State of Bihar. 5. The petitioner filed T.S. No. 5/1985 which was decreed in his favour, against which the State filed Misc. Case No. 7/1988 which stood dismissed vide order, dated 4.6.1988. Another Misc. case was filed which also stood dismissed on 15.7.1993. As such the judgment and order of T.S. No. 5/1985 delivered on 16.12.1987 attained finality. 6. The petitioner found that he would be unable to recover the possession of the lands in question as several persons were already living on the lands in question and, therefore, he filed an application before the Collector, Nawadah that he may be awarded compensation for the lands by instituting Land Acquisition Proceeding. Thereafter the Additional Collector wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer to take steps to acquire the lands of the petitioner which has already been distributed to displaced persons due to construction of the dam. Exchange of letters between the Land Acquisition Officer, the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer continued since 1994 onwards. Finally the Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Nawadah had estimated that the cost of the lands of the petitioner would be Rs.50 lakhs and sent letter to the Land acquisition Officer, Patna to take necessary steps for obtaining the amount aforesaid. After 2005 again letters were exchanged with different authorities. However, no action has been taken upto now. 7. The stand of the State, on the other hand, is that the lands in question do not belong to the petitioner. After 2005 again letters were exchanged with different authorities. However, no action has been taken upto now. 7. The stand of the State, on the other hand, is that the lands in question do not belong to the petitioner. He was not properly settled the lands and, therefore, he cannot make any claim. 8. The stand of the State challenging the title of the petitioner cannot be accepted by the court once there is a decree of a civil court declaring his title on the lands in question. Once it is decided that the petitioner has title over the lands, action taken on behalf of the State either prior to the decree or after the decree cannot be substantiated in view of the fact that the State is a Welfare State and cannot by virtue of utilizing its power arbitrarily take possession of the lands of any private person. It is also unfortunate that although different authorities of the department have been writing letters to the Land Acquisition Officer both at Nawadah and Patna and the Water Resources Department, no steps have been taken to make payment of compensation to the petitioner. I, therefore, direct that the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department and the Executive Engineer Fulwaria Dam should take a decision in this matter and award compensation to the petitioner in view of the fact that they have taken possession of the petitioner’s land for which he has valid decree from the civil court declaring his title. The said decision should be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 9. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. 10. However, this court is not inclined to impose any cost on the State as the distribution of the lands was made prior to the decree of the civil court in T.S. No. 5/1985.