Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1947 (PAT)

Gajendra Narayan Mishra v. State of Bihar

2011-09-09

T.MEENA KUMARI, VIKASH JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT : VIKASH JAIN, J. The present L.P.A. has been filed against the ORDER :dated 04.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 262 of 2009 with C.W.J.C. No. 510 of 2009, whereby he has declined to interfere in the matter of acquisition of lands of the appellants for rehabilitation of displaced persons on account of raising of Bagmati embankment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states and submits that the 58 persons for the rehabilitation of whom the appellants’ lands in question were made the subject matter of acquisition, are in fact not displaced persons. The said 58 persons are said to have constructed their houses in the safe zones, and cannot be said to be in the unsafe zone so as to legitimately claim to be displaced persons. 3. By ORDER :of this court dated 26.04.2011, a report from the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, was called for with a view to set at rest the controversy and the disputed facts with regard to whether or not the 58 persons had been living in their houses in the unsafe zone. The pursuant report vide letter no. 11/CONF dated 26.7.2011 has since been received. From the District Magistrate, a copy whereof has been enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State after serving copy thereof and accordingly, the same has become part of the L.P.A. 4. The said report of the District Magistrate is stated to have been prepared after hearing the parties concerned and after taking note of the various evidences produced before him. The cases of each of the displaced persons have been individually dealt with and categorical findings recorded to the effect that none of the 58 persons had their houses within the embankment area in question. It has been stated that of the 58 persons, 5 persons belonged to other villages and were in fact not residents of village Janarh at all. With regard to the remaining persons, it has clearly been stated that they had their houses in the safe zone in village Janarh, well outside the embankment area. 5. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the displaced persons for being impleaded as intervener respondents. With regard to the remaining persons, it has clearly been stated that they had their houses in the safe zone in village Janarh, well outside the embankment area. 5. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the displaced persons for being impleaded as intervener respondents. After some arguments and in view of the report of the District Magistrate however, the counsel appearing on their behalf has sought leave of the court to withdraw the intervention petitions, which is granted with liberty to such persons to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances, if any, as prayed. 6. Learned counsel for the State appears and is heard. In view of the report of the District Magistrate, he submits that no useful purpose would be served in going forward with the land acquisition proceedings. 7. Having heard the parties and considering the report of the District Magistrate, this court is of the view that the government was misled with regard to the status of the displaced persons by various earlier reports of the officers which are contrary to facts and thus the necessity of land acquisition, by reason of various conflicting reports at the different stages. In view of the categorical findings recorded by the District Magistrate, it clearly appears that this is not a case of displacement of the 58 persons and as such the entire exercise for land acquisition would serve no purpose in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the State that in view of the report of the District Magistrate the government is no longer interested in pursuing the land acquisition proceedings, we are also of the opinion that the notification no. 14/D.L.A./Muzaffarpur 26/08-126/R, Patna dated 14.08.2008 issued in terms of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as also notification no. 1318 dated 22.8.2008 under Section 6 of the said Act, be and are accordingly quashed. The ORDER :of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the L.P.A. is accordingly allowed.