Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 734 (JHR)

Damodar Valley Corporation v. Jailal Mahto

2010-07-15

D.N.PATEL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
Order We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Land Acquisition Proceeding was set aside by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that individual notices on the petitioners had not been served under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as it stood after local amendment in the State of Bihar in the year 1960. The said local amendment requires individual notice to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. 3. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that it was not disputed that the names of the petitioners who are purchasers of the certain area of the acquired land had been mutated in the Government revenue records. 4. The argument from the side of the appellant is that the acquisition of land is covered by Entry 42 of the "Concurrent List" of the 7th Schedule of Constitution of India. 5. The further argument is that under Article 254 of the Constitution of India where there is a repugnancy between the Central legislation and State legislation in respect of a matter covered by the Concurrent List, the Central legislation is to prevail. 6. In the year 1984 Land Acquisition Act was amended by the Parliament and Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Post 1984 Amendment) does not prescribe individual notice to be served on interested persons but, prescribes a different mode of publication. 7. For ready reference Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as it stood in the State of Bihar after 1960 and before 1984 is reproduced below:- "(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, at the offices of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII 1948), and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated; and the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land." 8. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act after the 1984 Central amendment reads as follows: "(1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] that land in any locality [is need or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locally [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)]." 9. There is an apparent repugnancy between the two provisions with regard to publication/service of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, Central Amendment will prevail. 10. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Atma Ram Yadav VS. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 738 . 11. The learned Single Judge apparently has not taken this aspect into consideration. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for examining the matter afresh with regard to other issues.