ORDER I.A. No. 3435 of 2012 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant of I.A. No.3435 of 2012 and the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as well as counsel for the University. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking direction against the respondent-State that the respondents should take all necessary steps, so that the construction of boundary wall of the campus of National University of Study & Research in Law, Ranchi (NUSRL) may be completed at the place of land which has been allotted to the NUSRL by the State Government. 3. This Court on 30th April, 2012 passed the order and directed the State and State authorities to ensure that the construction may be started within 48 hours and adequate measure be taken by the administration effectively, if any disturbance is sought to be created by anybody. 4. One I.A. No. 1558 of 2012 was filed in this petition by 15 persons, claiming themselves to be the Raiyats of the land in question claiming right over the land in question which was acquired in the year 195758. They pleaded that though the land was acquired in the year 195758 but money was not paid to them and it was deposited in the Treasury of the State on the name of the compensation. On the basis of their plea of non acceptance of the payment of compensation etc. they sought to be impleaded as party in this writ petition and virtually they sought to challenge the land acquisition of the year 195758 in the year 2012 and, that too, as respondent in the petitioner's writ petition, having limited scope. This Court considered the said I.A. No.1558 of 2012 on 16th May, 2012 and dismissed the same. After considering the detailed argument, this Court observed that some of the aggrieved applicants may not have born in the year 195758 at the time of land acquisition and now after more than fifty years they are raising frivolous objection with respect to land acquisition. This Court considered the question of not making correction of the entries in the revenue records by the Revenue authority of the land acquired and continuation of some of the entries in the name of those persons whose land was acquired and rejected the contention of those applicants. 5. This Court considered the question of not making correction of the entries in the revenue records by the Revenue authority of the land acquired and continuation of some of the entries in the name of those persons whose land was acquired and rejected the contention of those applicants. 5. Be that as it may, against the dismissal of I.A. No. 1558 of 2012 vide order dated 16th May, 2012, one Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.18622 of 2012 was preferred by applicants of I.A. No. 1558 of 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to dismiss the said petition vide order dated 28th June, 2012 after observing that “Inasmuch as acquisition of the concerned land has taken place in 195758, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly”. Therefore, the challenge to the land acquisition given by the cultivators themselves and rejected by this Court vide order dated 16th May, 2012 was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. This Court also found that even some of the persons concerned whose land was acquired, they chose to prefer writ petition being W.P.(C)No.2356 of 2009, which also has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26th April, 2011 and modified by order dated 29th April, 2011, wherein the cultivators agreed and obtained the direction to the respondent-State to pay the compensation amount with interest as per law. Thereafter, one Review petition was filed being Civil Review No.40 of 2011 which, too, was dismissed by this Court on 5.9.2012. 7. Even after some of the cultivators already took the compensation long back and even after rejection of the challenge to the land acquisition of some of the cultivators and some of the cultivators already obtained the order for payment of compensation amount, this Court looking to the peculiar facts of the poor persons, directed the State Government to make the cultivators understand the real legal position and their status, for which as per the affidavit filed by the State Government, rounds of meetings were convened with the said cultivators and till the time of filing of this I.A. by the Gram Sabha several orders already passed by this Court, now the Gram Sabha wants to raise the issue of legality of acquisition. 8. 8. This application ( I.A. No. 3435 of 2012) has been filed by the Gram Sabha for being impleaded as party and learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court is proceeding on assumption that land acquisition proceedings of 195758 was a valid, whereas that is not correct, therefore, the Gram Sabha may be impleaded as a party, so that it may show that the land in question is situated within the Scheduled Area, which has been declared Scheduled Area under the provisions of Article 244 of the Constitution of India, giving the administration and control of the Scheduled Area to the Gram Sabha and Gram Sabha wants to submit before this Court that land was not lawfully acquired as the Land Acquisition Act was not extended to the Scheduled Area in terms of the Clause(5) of paragraph-5 of the Vth Schedule of the Constitution. It is also submitted that Gram Sabha is required to be constituted as per Article 243A of the Constitution of India. Since the Gram Sabha having been constituted under the provisions of the Constitution, therefore, Gram Sabha, if will be impleaded as party, would be able to show that land in question was not acquired in accordance with law. It is submitted that if it is held that land in the year 195758 was not lawfully acquired and now State wants to acquire the land then, the law of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act as well as Panchayat Extension of Scheduled Area Act, 1996 are required to be followed. 9. Contesting the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently questioned the locus standi of the applicant and submitted that land acquisition has already been challenged by the cultivators themselves again and again before this very Court and the orders passed against them have attained finality. Now the Gram Sabha who has no locus standi, without it's interest wants to take the cause of those very cultivators who already obtained verdict against them even from upto Supreme Court. 10. The learned Advocate General also submitted that the applicant has no locus standi, nor they have any reason to challenge the land acquisition of the year 195758 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18622 of 2012 dismissed the challenge of the land acquisition on the ground of laches when land acquisition is sought to be challenged in the year 2012. Therefore, it is submitted that application may be rejected. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. We have already mentioned that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking direction against the respondents to direct the State to provide full assistance to the NUSRL, Ranchi to construct the building of the University and, therefore, scope of this petition is limited to that extent. The cultivators did not challenge the land acquisition in Court in last 60 years and some of them already died. Six of the cultivators in W.P.(C) No. 2356 of 2009 agreed to the land acquisition, provided the petitioners thereof are paid statutory interest over the compensation. Few other cultivators challenged the land acquisition and lost upto Supreme Court. The Gram Sabha, which was in existence, even prior to the said land acquisition of 195758, has become wise to take the cause of those persons, who lost their cases and of those who did not challenge the acquisition of the land in their life time and also of those cultivators who themselves were capable but did not choose to challenge the land acquisition. The conduct of the Gram Sabha is also seriously questionable, in view of the fact that inspite of several orders passed by this Court and widely circulated, in view of the direction of this Court, even in local languages and direction to the State Government to convene the meeting of the cultivators, which, in fact, has been convened on different occasions and which was attended by the cultivators and other villagers but Gram Sabha did not do anything. All of a sudden the Gram Sabha became wise to question the acquisition of the land in the year 2012 of the land acquisition of 1957-58. 12. The learned Advocate General is fully justified in saying that in this way, in different phases, the different persons may come and raise the same issue with different grounds, so as to create the dispute which has already attained finality long back. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court is proceeding on the assumption of valid land acquisition and applicant wants to show that said acquisition is not a valid acquisition. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court is proceeding on the assumption of valid land acquisition and applicant wants to show that said acquisition is not a valid acquisition. The contention of the applicant is misplaced, inasmuch as the lawful acquisition is required to be accepted and carried out, according to the provisions of law. 14. In that view of the matter, if the applicant is permitted to be impleaded as party, it will result into unnecessary reopening of the issue already decided by this Court on the application filed by concerned persons themselves, which may result into absolutely contradictory order. 15. Therefore, the application for being impleading as party is dismissed. I.A. No.3435 of 2012, accordingly, stands dismissed. Application & IA dismissed.