Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 982 (PAT)

Bal Govind Prasad v. Devesh Sehra The Collector

2016-07-28

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2016
ORDER : In pursuance of order dated 14.07.2016, the Collector-Nawada, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Protection Project, Anisabad, Patna, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna, Executive Engineer, Phulwaria Dam Embankment Division, Water Resources Department, Nawada, are present. 2. With regard to Principal Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna I.A. No. 6024/2016 has been filed to dispense with his physical presence only for today as he has to visit along with Hon’ble the Chief Minister while making survey of flood affected area and is, accordingly, allowed. 3. This MJC has a peculiar feature. Petitioner while drawing up Title Suit No. 05/1985 arraying the State as a party been allowed to proceed with the aforesaid Title Suit without any hitch and hindrance at the end of defendant and that being so, the aforesaid Title Suit ultimately concluded in ex parte manner by way of decree. No appeal was preferred at the end of the defendant within the stipulated period. However, it is evident that after eschewing the period of limitation, the State got awoken from deep slumber and now beating the drum when their illegal activities as suggested by the petitioner whereunder land has been encroached, people have been allowed to be over the land without any acquisition, payment of compensation whereupon CWJC No. 12873/2006 has been drawn up on behalf of petitioner and the same was decided on 08.07.2010 directing the respondents to make payment of compensation at an earliest, more particularly, within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 4. Aforesaid four months lapsed without any fruitful result whereupon, the instant MJC has been drawn up in the year 2012. The State machinery happens to be so attentive that one Civil Review No. 484/2012 which was filed for reviewing the order dated 08.07.2010, the order impugned was unattended whereupon dismissed in default on 14.07.2014 itself. 5. The learned PAAG-1 has submitted that for the present, Second Appeal is pending whereunder petitioner has appeared. It has also been submitted that for the restoration of Civil Review No. 484/2012, MJC has been filed. It has also been submitted that for taking proper action in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, certain mandatory provisions are to be followed and for that sufficient time is required, which should be granted. 6. It has also been submitted that for the restoration of Civil Review No. 484/2012, MJC has been filed. It has also been submitted that for taking proper action in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, certain mandatory provisions are to be followed and for that sufficient time is required, which should be granted. 6. In the aforesaid eventualities, it has been submitted that a large chunk of land is under controversy and on account thereof, a huge amount will be required in order to pay the compensation. That being so, in the background of pendency of Second Appeal and further, having the decree before the learned Civil Court in ex parte manner, at least sufficient time be given so that Opposite Parties be able to have an opportunity to take proper recourse in getting the ex parte judgment duly nullified. 7. Be that as it may, no stay is there at any quarter and so the order impugned still survives. The order impugned has been on account of lapse. Whether it was an intentional one, the Opposite Parties are best persons to identify. But the fact remains that the exercise as per order impugned was expected to be completed with within four months and that had gone unheeded. Because of the fact that possession had already been taken up by the State by way allowing the persons for rehabilitation on account thereof, whatever legal processes are to be taken in terms of Land Acquisition Act, appear to be subsequent event. The fact remains that petitioner has been deprived of mense profit of the property, unauthorizedly having sanction of law. On account thereof, two options are found available before the OPs. The first one, to remove presence of persons from the land and then thereafter, to give vacant possession or, to comply the order impugned. From the conduct of the OPs, it is apparent that in spite of having order impugned passed in the year 2010, they have not opted to initiate any recourse in order to comply the same. As such, an adjournment of 15 days is granted to the O.Ps. to opt either of the two event, as disclosed above, and will apprise the court, failing which they will be accountable for contempt. 8. As such, an adjournment of 15 days is granted to the O.Ps. to opt either of the two event, as disclosed above, and will apprise the court, failing which they will be accountable for contempt. 8. As such, the Opposite Parties are directed to be present on 19.08.2016 on which date they will file supplementary show-cause with regard to the steps taken up at their end in complying the order impugned otherwise will have to face ultimate consequence.