Sandeep Kumar, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:— “(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to handover the physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land situated at Kumhrar, Patna to the Bihar Finance Service Housing Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. in compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1357 of 2003, with a specific direction to the Collector, Patna for such handover within a period of 4 months. (ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to alternatively allot 16.2489 acres of land in favour of the Bihar Finance Service Housing Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. within the Patna Municipal area. (iii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the price of the value of the land to Bihar Finance Service Housing Constriction Co-operative Society Ltd. in lieu of the handover the physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land situated at Kumhrar, Patna, based on the prevailing circle rate of Kumhrar, Patna. (iv) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.10 to cancel the sale deeds registered in favour of the encroachers and consequently, register the 16.2489 acres of land at Kumhrar in favour of the Bihar Finance Service Housing Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. (v) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to execute a perpetual land lease/leasehold/Khas Mahal Lease in respect of the 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna with Bihar Finance Service Housing Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. on payment of Re. 1/- per acre as its annual rent as approved by the State Cabinet on 01.07.2014. (vi) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to compensate the Bihar Finance Service Housing Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. for the value of 21.1485 acres of land at Kumhrar with interest, which was not allotted to the Society in terms of the order and judgment dated 20.06.2001 of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.2755 of 1988 and analogous 23 other cases, and the order and judgment dated 18.08.2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 1357 of 2003.” 2. In this case, the petitioner no.1 is the Bihar Finance Service House Construction Co-operative Society. Petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are the President and the Members of the petitioner-Society. Since the members of the petitioner-society were landless, a society was created to secure land from the State Government by way of acquisition, as early as in the year 1973, for which payment was made about 38 years ago under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the petitioner-society. The petitioner-society has filed this writ petition pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in W.P. (C) No.193 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had relegated the mater to this Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-society that on the requisition made by it, the State of Bihar initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 59.95 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna. A notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 21.04.1981 and objections were invited as contemplated under Section 59(a) of the aforesaid Act. The objections so received from the interested persons were duly considered and disposed of. Thereafter, an agreement as per Section 41 of the Act was duly executed between the State Government and the petitioner-society on 24.02.1983 and was published in the official Gazette as per Section 42 of the Act on 04.03.1983. The declaration as provided under section 6 was issued on 16.03.1983 and accordingly, the amount of compensation was computed and an award of Rs.89,17,500/- was prepared in December, 1983 for acquisition of 49.4525 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna in favour of the petitioner-society, which was deposited by the petitioner-society in the State treasury in December, 2023 and January, 2024. Thereafter, the possession of 49.50 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna was handed over to the petitioner-society on 06.02.1984. However, the acquisition proceedings came to be challenged before this Court by some of the landowners in C.W.J.C No.2649 of 1983 and analogous writ petitions. This Court vide judgment and order dated 22.02.1990 quashed the aforesaid declaration under section 6 of the Act and remitted the matter back to the State Government with certain observations. Against the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner-society preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 13.08.1993 passed in Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. Against the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner-society preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 13.08.1993 passed in Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 255 set aside the order of this Court and remitted back the matter for a fresh consideration by this Court holding therein that the High Court should not have upset the notification under Section 6 of the Act as a whole and should have individualized justice vis-a-vis each writ petitioner before it. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner-society that after the remand, this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2755 of 1988 allowed the claim of some of the writ petitioners and directed for release of their lands from the acquisition while the claim of others was rejected. It has further been directed by this Court that the Collector, Patna shall identify the lands and deliver the possession of the same to the petitioner-society, if necessary, demolish the construction made thereon. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.06.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2755 of 1988 various SLPs were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 18.08.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1357 of 2003 (Ashish Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti vs. State of Bihar) and analogous cases, had disposed of all the cases. While considering the aforesaid cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated the facts that the controversies and disputes in the cases need to be settled by making equitable adjustment for 'individualized justice’. 5. According to the petitioner-society, since the above judgment and order dated 18.08.2004 was not complied with by the respondent-State, the petitioner-society filed Contempt Petition (C) No.44 of 2005 in Civil Appeal No.1357 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.03.2008 disposed of the contempt petition with direction that the authority concerned shall take appropriate action in accordance with law especially in light of the assurance given before the Court. However, the said order was not implemented and on the contrary fresh encroachments took place on the land in question, which compelled the petitioner - society to file a fresh contempt petition viz. Contempt Petition (C) No. 123 of 2011. However, the said order was not implemented and on the contrary fresh encroachments took place on the land in question, which compelled the petitioner - society to file a fresh contempt petition viz. Contempt Petition (C) No. 123 of 2011. In the said contempt petition, one interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.03 of 2011 dated 27.09.2011 was filed by the intervenor, who were the owners of the plots and have constructed their houses over the said land. 6. Further case of the petitioner-society is that in the said contempt petition, the Chief Secretary, the State of Bihar filed an affidavit of compliance dated 18.04.2013 which was superseded by another affidavit of compliance dated 26.04.2013 wherein it was stated that an area of 11.86 acre of land shall be given to the petitioner-society on ‘perpetual lease’ basis in Gardanibagh area. In the light of the affidavits dated 18.04.2013 and 26.04.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition by an order dated 29.04.2013 holding therein that if for any reason, the respondents do not comply with the undertakings given by them in the affidavit of compliance dated 26.04.2013 within a period of six months, the petitioner-society would be at liberty to approach this Court again by filing appropriate petition. Pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Bihar Cabinet on 01.07.2014 decided to allot 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna to the petitioner-society on perpetual lease. Accordingly, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar issued a notification no. 621(6) dated 23.07.2014, by which land admeasuring 11.86 acres was allotted to the petitioner-society on perpetual lease on token payment of Rs. 1/-per acre per year as rent. Thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate, Patna handed over 11.36 acres of land to Sri S.P. Tiwary, the then President of the petitioner-society. Before handing over the aforesaid land, measurement was done on 01.02.2014 and 02.02.2014 in presence of the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer of Building Construction Division, Gardanibagh and the Amins deputed by the Patna District Administration and representative of the petitioner-society. 7. Further case of the petitioner-society is that the measurement of the above 11.86 acres of land was again done on 01.03.2015 and it was completed on 11.03.2015. 7. Further case of the petitioner-society is that the measurement of the above 11.86 acres of land was again done on 01.03.2015 and it was completed on 11.03.2015. The exercise was done by a team of officers consisting of Additional Collector (Revenue), Patna, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of Building Construction Department, Gardanibagh Division, Patna DCLR, Patna, C.O. Patna, four Amins and a representative of the petitioner-society and the joint report was also prepared and signed by them on 21.03.2015. The then Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt petition (Civil) No.6 of 2015 filed by the petitioner-society wherein it was categorically and in clear terms stated there was no dispute regarding the land which has been allotted to the petitioner-society. In paragraph no.20 of the affidavit filed by the then Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, it has been stated that “the opposite party (Govt. of Bihar) had deputed the four Amins for verification as well as measurement of 11.86 acres land transferred to the petitioner-society. The aforesaid verification as well as measurement was started on 11.03.2015 and continued till 15.03.2015. The Amin deputed by the petitioner-society was also present on the spot. The verification and measurement of land was supervised by the Addl. Collector, Patna, the DCLR, Patna Sadar, the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar and Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department Gardanibagh Division, Patna and Kumar Gautam Officer-in- Charge of the petitioner society. All the issues regarding the demarcation as well as physical possession on the 11.86 acres of the transferred land to the society were resolved amicably to the satisfaction of the society and no dispute was pending regarding demarcation and physical possession of the land in question”. 8. According to the petitioner-society responding to the letter dated 08.04.2015 issued by the Collector, Patna, it sent the lease agreement papers for 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh in the prescribed format duly signed by the President and the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner-society on 12.05.2015 for further signature of the Collector, Patna and the authorized officer of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar. The Collector, Patna, in turn, sent the aforementioned lease agreement to the Estate Officer, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar for signature, who in turn, as per the directions of the Head of the Building Construction Department authorized the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Gardanibagh Division, Patna to sign the lease agreement. The original lease agreement was thus sent to the Executive Engineer with a direction to return the same immediately. Thus, the Building Construction Department shifted the responsibility to its field officer in order to delay the matter. According to the petitioner-society in July, 2015 one Santosh Kumar, the then Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Gardanibagh Division, Patna encroached 16 decimals of land at Gardanibagh which was earlier given to the petitioner-society and he also constructed boundary walls on the eastern and northern sides of the said land. 9. According to the petitioner-society the officials of the petitioner-society approached the officials of the respondent-State several times but they turned a deaf ear to the request of the petitioner-society and despite a specific stand taken by the Government of Bihar through the affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary dated 26.04.2013, no actual physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land at Kumhrar was given to the petitioner-society and many unauthorized constructions were there on the said land. Despite the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a specific stand taken by the Government of Bihar through the affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary, no actual physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna was given to the petitioner-society and many unauthorized constructions were there on the said land. Therefore, the petitioner-society filed another contempt petition vide Contempt Petition (c) no.6 of 2015, which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2017. 10. Further case of the petitioner-society is that despite the petitioner-society being handed over Kheshra Nos. 190, 197, 204, 210, 214, 235, 238, 245, 247 & 248, total area 5.805 acres of land at Kumhrar in the year 2006 & 2007 and as per certified copy of the valuation Khatiyan Register of District Land Acquisition Office, Patna the above mentioned Kheshra belonged to one Gulam Sarful Haque, son of Rasidul Haque, Kumhrar House, Mohalla - Dargahpur, Patna and these lands were acquired from Mr. Gulam Sarful Haque and were handed over to the petitioner-society in 2006 and 2007, the present status of these lands is that all these Kheshras have been captured and registered in the names of land mafia operating at Kumhrar, Patna. The documents relating to the possession of Kheshra no. 190, 197 & 245 at Kumhrar, Patna indicate that Kheshra No.190 and 197 have been mutated in the names of persons not belonging to the petitioner- society i.e. one Mr. Nawal Lal Yadav, son of late Lal Babu Yadav and one Ashok Yadav, son of Shyam Yadav in the year 2019. The said mutation was effected by Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, the then Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, on the recommendation of the Circle Inspector and Karamchari Mr. Pradip Vishakarma. A part of plot no.515 Kheshra No.245 has also been captured by one Nawab Lal Yadav and others. Thus, it is clear from the above facts that a total of 5.805 acres of land which had been acquired from Gulam Sarful Haque have been illegally and unauthorizedly captured and were mutated in the names of the aforesaid Nawab Lal Yadav and others, who have also sold a part of land in connivance with Sub Registrars, Patna City and Circle Officer, Patna Sadar. 11. According to the petitioner-society, it made an online application for the mutation of all lands allotted to the petitioner-society at Kumhrar on 12.02.2019, 14.02.2019, 15.02.2019, 16.02.2019 and 18.02.2019 but the Circle Officer vide order dated 28.09.2019, 30.09.2019 and 19.10.2019 rejected the mutation applications of the petitioner-society. The petitioner- society brings on record that some portions of land for which the petitioner-society had moved before the C.O. for mutation but were mutated in name of some other persons vide order 07.03.2020 and 27.03.2020. Through some land registry papers, it has come to the notice of the petitioner-society that some plots of land which were allotted to the petitioner-society in Kumhrar have been sold to some other persons. Some of the plots were sold prior to 2006-2007 whereas some other plots were sold after 2006-2007 and even constructions have been made over some of the plots after registration. Some of the plots were sold prior to 2006-2007 whereas some other plots were sold after 2006-2007 and even constructions have been made over some of the plots after registration. Moreover, the Government vide Notification No. 1157 dated 23.06.2011 has taken back 1.84 acres of land from the petitioner-society out of total area of land i.e. 16.2489 acres at Kumhrar, as a result of which, the petitioner-society was left with only 14.4029 acres of land and not 16.2489 acres of land as claimed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar in his affidavit. 12. The case of the petitioner-society is that despite the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to handover physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land in Kumhrar, Patna in favour of the petitioner-society and to execute a perpetual lease for the remaining portion of land measuring 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna, the same was not complied with and therefore, petitioner-society filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 193 of 2022. The matter was taken up for hearing on 01.04.2022 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to relegate the issues raised in the writ petition to this Court to avail such remedy and was further pleased to observe that since the right emanates for acquisition of the land in the year 1983, the High Court will be well advised to decide the writ petition, if any filed expeditiously. In view of the observations in the order dated 01.04.2022 the present writ application has been filed. The petitioner-society also filed miscellaneous application vide Diary No.26740 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1357 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 permitted the petitioner-society to withdraw I.A. Nos.142153 of 2021 and 142145 of 2021 with liberty to the petitioner-society to approach this Court for appropriate relief. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitionersociety submits that the petitioner-society had deposited the award amount of Rs.89,17,500/- in the treasury of the State Government in the land acquisition proceeding about 38 years ago but till date, the petitioner-society could not enjoy the fruits of the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated about four decades ago and therefore, grave injustice is being suffered by members of the Society at the hands of the respondents. 14. 14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-society also submits that all the members of the petitionersociety have contributed towards payment of award amount for acquisition of the land from their hard-earned money or after taking loans for the same but, even after all these years, they have neither been given the land nor in lieu of the land they have been given compensation. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-society further submits that despite the petitioner-society having deposited the award amount in the State Treasury and legal possession of the land was also given to it, the original land owners kept on selling the land under acquisition and constructions were also made thereupon. This facts of selling and constructing the land in question were well within the knowledge of the State Government. 16. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner-society that when the matter was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.08.2014, out of the 56.1275 acres of land acquired by the State Government for the petitioner-society, only 28.108 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna came to the share of the petitioner-society. In the meantime, land kept changing hands and construction continued to be made well within the knowledge of the State Government, Patna Regional Development Authority and other agencies of the State Government and ultimately out of the 28.108 acres of land that was apportioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner-society, the State Government allotted only 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna in compliance of the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 123 of 2011 and legal possession was again given of 16.2489 acres of land to the petitioner Society at Kumhrar, Patna. However, till date the Khas Mahal lease for 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna has not been executed in favour of the petitioner Society. Instead the Executive Engineer of the Building Construction Department, Patna has forcibly and illegally occupied some portions of the allotted land at Gardanibagh, Patna. However, till date the Khas Mahal lease for 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna has not been executed in favour of the petitioner Society. Instead the Executive Engineer of the Building Construction Department, Patna has forcibly and illegally occupied some portions of the allotted land at Gardanibagh, Patna. As far as the land at Kumhrar is concerned, no actual physical possession after demarcating the lands was given to the petitioner-society and on the contrary, the Government agencies have continued to register sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of some of this land and mutated their names in the municipal and revenue records and at the same time rejected the claim of the petitioner- society. 17. It has also been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the award under section 11 of the Act was prepared for 49.4525 acres of land at Kumhrar for the petitioner- society and the petitioner-society deposited the award amount of Rs.89,17,500/- in December, 1983 and January, 1984 for 49.4525 acres of land but after the judgment and order dated 20.06.2001 of this Court and the judgment and order dated 18.08.2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of 49.4525 acres of land, 21.1485 acres of land were released from acquisition and the petitioner-society was left with only 28.104005 acres of land, as stated in paragraph no.45 of the writ petition. As a result, the State Government has to compensate the petitioner-society for the value of 21.1485 acres of land at Kumhrar with interest, which as per record available in the office of the petitioner-society has not been returned as yet. 18. It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner-society that the petitioner-society had sought information under the Right to Information Act as to whether the amount of compensation deposited by the petitioner-society had been paid to the land owners, whose land had been acquired on the requisition of the petitioner-society, the Assistant Public Information Officer vide letter dated 07.09.2021 informed the petitioner-society that only an amount of Rs.1,00,034.44/- was paid as compensation to only one of the land owners and apart from him there was no payment of compensation to any other land owner. The action of the State Government is grossly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. The respondent no. The action of the State Government is grossly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. The respondent no. 6, 10 and 11 have filed their counter affidavit in the matter and stated therein that petitioner- society was handed over plots no. 190, 197, 204, 210, 214, 235, 238, 245, 247 and 248, total area 5.805 acres of land at Kumhrar in the year 2006 and 2007. It has also been stated that all the plots have been captured by the land mafia operating at Kumhrar, Patna. There is complex question of right and title with regard to the land in question which is claimed by the petitioner-society. The applications of the petitioner-society for for mutation of the lands have been rejected by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar in view of letter no.2084 dated 14.11.2007 issued by the Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna wherein it has been made very clear that if the documents presented before the Registering Officer fulfills the conditions then the said document can be registered unless there is any stay order or any such order passed by any competent Court. Registering a document in favour of any person does not guarantee its title. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the State Government allotted 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna in compliance of order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 123 of 2011 and the legal possession was again given of 16.2489 acres of land to the petitioner-society at Kumhrar, Patna. 20. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent no.6 and 9, it has been stated that the repossession of 16.2489 acres of land in Kumhrar has been handed over to the petitioner-society. The certificate of restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner-society has been annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. The Bihar Cabinet, in compliance of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had decided to allot 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Mauza- Dhirachak, Thana No.16, to the petitioner-society on perpetual lease. In this regard, a notification dated 23.07.2014 has been issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. The measurement of the said land was done in presence of all concerned including the representative of the petitioner-society. In this regard, a notification dated 23.07.2014 has been issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. The measurement of the said land was done in presence of all concerned including the representative of the petitioner-society. In view of approval made by the Department, the Collector, Patna vide memo no. 8026 dated 17.11.2023 requested the Secretary of the petitioner-society to make available the copy of the lease agreement so that further action is taken for handing over the possession of 11.86 acres of land to the petitioner-society. It has also been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that the answering respondents shall take further action when the copy of the lease agreement is made available by the petitioner-society to the office of Collector, Patna. 21. It has also been stated that on 22.01.2024 this Court heard the matter and adjourned the same for one month to enable the respondents to take necessary action for finalizing the lease deed and for taking necessary steps for giving possession to the petitioner-society in accordance with law and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed earlier between the same parties. In light of the aforesaid order of this Court, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna convened a meeting on 07.02.2024 in presence of all concerned authorities including the lawyers for the petitioner-society. In light of the aforesaid order of this Court, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna convened a meeting on 07.02.2024 in presence of all concerned authorities including the lawyers for the petitioner-society. The relevant part of the extract of the minutes of the meeting dated 07.02.2024 reads as under:— ^^cSBd esa gq, ppkZ dk fooj.k%& lhŒMCywŒtsŒlhŒ la[;k&9599@2022 fcgkj foÙk lsok x`g fuekZ.k lg;ksx lfefr fyfeVsM ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 22-01-2024 ds lanHkZ esa vkgwr cSBd esa RFCTLARR Act, 2013 dh èkkjk&24] tks fd Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases ds lacaèk esa gS] dk lanHkZ fy;k x;kA mDr èkkjk dh dafMdk&¼2½ fuEuor~ gS%& Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), in case of land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so choose, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holding has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. mi;qZDr lanHkZ esa cSBd esa mifLFkr ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vfèkÑr vfèkoDrk Jh Á.ko dqekj }kjk viuk i{k j[krs gq, mYysf[kr fd;k x;k fd Á'uxr vftZr Hkwfe jdck&16-2489 ,dM+ Hkw&[k.M dk fcgkj foÙk lsok x`g fuekZ.k lg;ksx lfefr fyfeVsM dks ek=k vkWu isij n[ky&dCtk fn;k x;k gS] ijUrq HkkSfrd n[ky&dCtk ugha fn;k x;k gSA RFCTLARR Act, 2013 dh èkkjk 24¼2½ ds lacaèk esa Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh dafMdk&366-3 dk lanHkZ fd;k x;k] ftlesa of.kZr gS fd “The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh dafMdk&366-3 dk lanHkZ fd;k x;k] ftlesa of.kZr gS fd “The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.” bl ifjÁs{; esa ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dk i{k gS fd Hkwfe vfèkxzg.k dh dk;Zokgh lekIr (Land acquisition proceeding is not lapse) ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg,A mYys[kuh; gS fd voekuuk okn la[;k&123@2011 esa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk vius ;kfpdk dh dafMdk&30 esa fuEu rF; vafdr fd;k x;k gS%& “That against the said entitlement of the Petitioner Society to the extent of 28.13238 acres, the Petitioner Society till date has been handed over possession of only 17.63765 acres of land and that too in scattered manner proving to be stumbling block in planned development of land under acquisition for the petitioner Society, though a period of more than six years from the original order dated 18.08.2004 and about three years from the order passed in contempt order dated 05.03.2008 and more than a year from the rectification order dated 11-09-2009 by the Hon’ble Patna Court has elapsed.” Á'uxr okn esa eq[; lfpo ds Lrj ls fnukad 28-11-2012 dks nk;j Áfr'kiFk i= esa mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd%& “Total area of vacant land (16.2489 Acres), re-possession of which was given on 30/06/2006, 02/02/2007, 03/02/2007, 17/04/2007 and 06/07/2007 in compliance of Civil Contempt Case No.44/05” bls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ifjr vkns'k fnukad 29-04-2013 dh dafMdk&3 esa Lohdkj djrs gq, fuEu rF; vafdr fd;k x;k gS%& “The aforesaid affidavit of compliance dated 26.04.2013 is not opposed by Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Society. Since there is clear understanding of mutual obligation and its compliance by both the parties, in our view, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition for our consideration and decision. Since there is clear understanding of mutual obligation and its compliance by both the parties, in our view, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, the contempt Petition is disposed of as unnecessary for the present. bl Ádkj ;g Li"V gS fd lacafèkr laLFkk dks vfèkxzfgr dqy jdck 28-104005 ,dM+ esa ls 16-2489 ,dM+ Hkwfe dk n[ky&dCtk ÁkIr Fkk] ftls vius ;kfpdk esa muds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] ftls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk vius vkns'k esa bl rF; dks lEiq"V fd;k x;k gSA rRi'pkr~ 'ks"k jdck&11-86 ,dM+ Hkwfe ds lanHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa xnZuhckx ds ekStk&èkhjkpd esa jdck&11-86 ,dM+ ljdkjh Hkwfe miyCèk djkbZ xbZA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vfèkÑr vfèkoDrk ds vuqlkj Á'uxr Hkwfe jdck&16-2489 ,dM+ muds HkkSfrd n[ky&dCts esa ugha gS] tcfd ;g ftEesnkjh lacafèkr laLFkk dh FkhA bl lacaèk esa ;g rF; Hkh Áklafxd gS fd ekeys esa Hkw&vtZu dh dkjZokbZ Hkw&vtZu vfèkfu;e] 1894 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèkr 1984½ ds rgr~ dh xbZ gS] tks fd fnukad 01-01-2014 ls vÁHkkoh gSA mDr frfFk ls RFCTLARR Act, 2013 ÁHkkoh gS] ftlds èkkjk&24¼2½ ds vuqlkj iqjkus Hkw&vtZu vfèkfu;e ds rgr vftZr Hkwfe lacafèkr laLFkk ds n[ky&dCtk esa ugha gksus vFkok lacafèkr fgrc jS;rksa dks muds [kkrs esa eqvkotk dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkw&vtZu dh ÁfØ;k dks O;ixr (lapsed) ekus tkus dk mYys[k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Á'uxr ekeys esa Hkwfe vfèkxzg.k dh dk;Zokgh lekIr (Land acquisition proceeding lapsed) ekuh tk,xh ,oa rn~uqlkj fcgkj foÙk lsok x`g fuekZ.k lg;ksx lfefr fyfeVsM dk nkok vekU; gSA Á'uxr Hkwfe ij n[ky&dCtk dk;e j[kus esa lacafèkr laLFkk v{ke jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn pkgs rks HkkSfrd n[ky&dCtk ÁkIr djus gsrq fofèk ekU; dkjZokbZ dj ldrk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; gsrq Ásf"kr gSA gLrk{kj@& 7-2-2024 ¼czts'k esgjks=k½ vij eq[; lfpo jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lqèkkj foHkkxA** 22. Thus, in view of provisions of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 coupled with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 [: 2020 (3) BLJ 1 (SC)], the land acquisition proceeding initiated for acquisition of the land for the petitioner-society is considered as lapsed and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner-society deserves to be rejected. Moreover, till date the petitioner-society has chosen not to challenge the said decision of the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 07.02.2024 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 23. In reply to the counter and supplementary affidavits, it has been submitted by the petitioner-society that while refusing the claim of the petitioner-society, the Additional Chief Secretary relied on section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to conclude that since the possession of the land in question has not been given to the petitioner-society, the land acquisition proceeding is deemed to have been lapsed. However, the phrase “the physical possession of the land has not been taken” refers to possession being taken from the original land-owners and does not traverse to the stage where the possession is handed over to the concerned party. It is the consistent stand of the State Government before this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the possession of the land was taken by the Government for the purpose of handing over the same to the petitioner-society. 24. It has also been argued that only paper possession was given to the petitioner-society in relation to the land at Kumhrar and physical possession was not handed over, which is evident from letter no.3135 dated 03.06.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, wherein it has been admitted that due to various reasons till date the physical possession of the land has not been given to the petitioner-society. The two affidavits filed by the then Chief Secretary before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the decision of the Bihar Cabinet are binding on the Government and it cannot run away from its obligations by raising new pleas. The principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel will operate against the Government. 25. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. 26. From the records of the case, it appears that on the requisition of the petitioner-society, the State Government initiated a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of 59.94 acres of land for construction of houses for the members of the petitioner-society at Bhagwat Nagar, Kumhrar, Patna. Thereafter, a notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 21.04.1981. Thereafter, a notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 21.04.1981. After completing statutory formalities, a declaration under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 16.03.1983 and accordingly, the amount of compensation was computed and an award of Rs.89,17,500/- was prepared in December, 1983 for acquisition of the land at Kumhrar, Patna, which was duly deposited by the petitioner-society in the treasury of the State Government in December, 1983 and January, 1984. Initially, the possession of 49.50 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna was handed over to the petitioner-society by the State on 06.02.1984. Thereafter, several rounds of litigation took place by the land owners and consequently, out of the original 49.50 acres, by way of judicial orders, 21.1485 acres were released from acquisition and the petitioner-society was held to be entitled for about 28.104005 acres of land. 27. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated in paragraph no.5 that repossession of 16.2489 acres of land situated at Kumhrar, Patna has been handed over to the petitioner-society. On the other hand, the State Cabinet vide its meeting held on 01.07.2014, decided to allot 11.86 acres of land at Gardanibagh, Patna. Accordingly, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar issued a notification bearing no. 621(6) dated 23.07.2014, by which land admeasuring 11.86 acres was settled and allotted to the petitioner-society on perpetual lease on a token payment of Rs. 1/- per acre per year as rent. Thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate, Patna handed over 11.36 acres of land to Sri S.P. Tiwary, the then President of the petitioner-society. So far as the parcel of allotted land at Gardanibagh is concerned, the position is that the possession of the aforesaid land has been given to the petitioner-society, since the exercise of measurement of the said land has already been done in presence of all concerned including the representative of the petitioner-society and thereafter the Collector, Patna vide memo no. 2025 dated 28.03.2024 has issued order giving the approval for making amendment in the details of the land at Gardanibagh, Patna. Furthermore, the agreement deed which as been made available by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Gardanibagh stands approved and the District Sub-Registrar, Patna has been directed by the Collector for registration of the said deed. 28. 2025 dated 28.03.2024 has issued order giving the approval for making amendment in the details of the land at Gardanibagh, Patna. Furthermore, the agreement deed which as been made available by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Gardanibagh stands approved and the District Sub-Registrar, Patna has been directed by the Collector for registration of the said deed. 28. Now, coming to the parcel of land situated at Kumhrar, it is the case of the respondent authority that the land acquisition is deemed to be lapsed in pursuance of Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Therefore for better appreciation, it will be relevant to quote Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 reads as follows— “24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply, or (b) where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 29. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as (2020) SCC (8) 129 [: 2020 (3) BLJ 1 (SC)] has laid down the law on the question of twin statutory conditions required to satisfy the “deemed lapse” of land acquisition under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under:— “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:— 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land-holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1) (b). 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act is 1.1.2014. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act is 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and timebarred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition. (Emphasis supplied)” 30. A coordinate bench of this Court in Sur Bihari Mandal vs The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C No.10974 of 2019) had relied on the afore quoted Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and held as follows— “14. Now coming to the merits of this case, this Court also finds that some dates and events are admitted. The land acquisition proceeding was initiated pursuant to Land Acquisition Case No. 309/06-07. The notification under Sections of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the district gazette on 04.01.2008, even prior to filing of the first writ petition i.e., CWJC No. 10485 of 2010. After publication of the notification under Section 6, an award has also been declared under Section 11 of the Act 1894 on 17.04.2010 and thereafter possession of the acquired land has been handed over/delivered to the requisitioning officer vide certificate of possession dated 08.05.2010. The factum of issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph no.7 of the writ petition. Thus, once the aforenoted facts reveal that the possession of the land has been handed over to the requisitioning officer, two conditions in Section 24(2) which are required to be satisfied cumulatively in order to hold and declare deemed lapse of proceeding does not arise. 15. The Five-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) has held in uncertain terms that the deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceeding under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 takes place where due to inaction of the authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the said Act, the possession of the land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse. Similarly, if the compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 16. In case in hand the record clearly suggests that the possession has already been handed over to the requisitioning officer which fact has also been taken note of by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in MJC No. 1371 of 2015 and Civil Review No. 218 of 2016. The afore noted orders have been marked as Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition. The Five Judges Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) while dealing with the issue of mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act has also made it clear that when the State Government acquires land and draws up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and starts cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceeding for obtaining possession thereof. Further retaining of the land or any re-entry is made on the land or someone start cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outside, is deemed to be trespasser on land which is in possession of the State. The possession of trespasser always ensures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the case.” 31. The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 is no longer res integra, and the Courts have consistently held that the word "or" should be interpreted conjunctively as "and" or disjunctively as "nor" to determine the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings may deemed to lapse. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlights the judicial approach towards interpreting Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, emphasizing that the word "or" should not be taken literally to imply a disjunctive condition that could lead to the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlights the judicial approach towards interpreting Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, emphasizing that the word "or" should not be taken literally to imply a disjunctive condition that could lead to the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings. Instead, it should be interpreted in a manner that reflects true legislative intent and prevents unjust outcomes. Therefore, both the requirements as contemplated under Section 24(2) must be met in order to attract the consequences of deemed lapse. In the present case, the conditions have not been met to attract the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and therefore, the acquisition proceeding cannot be said to be lapsed and consequently, the petitioner-society retains its right towards the allotted land at Kumhrar, Patna. Moreover, the right of the petitioner-society stood crystallized in light of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in light of the affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna in the contempt proceeding. 32. In the instant case, in the meeting dated 07.02.2024 conducted during the pendency of this writ petition between the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms and the petitioner-society along with the counsel for the petitioner-society, the Additional Chief Secretary placing reliance on Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 concluded that if possession had not been given to the petitioner-society, then the land acquisition proceeding would lapse as a consequence of the statutory mandate, per contra, if the possession had been given to the petitioner-society then there remains no claim to be pressed and therefore either way no claim of the petitioner-society against the 16.2489 acres of land at Kumhrar survives. 33. This contention of the Additional Chief Secretary is lacking in merit. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was effected through the machinery of the State, i.e., the appropriate Government through its functionaries, as per the statutory mandate of the said Act. It is inescapable therefore that the possession would mean possession being taken from the landowners by the Government. This would not traverse to the possession being handed to the petitioner-society so far as consequences of section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is concerned. 34. It is inescapable therefore that the possession would mean possession being taken from the landowners by the Government. This would not traverse to the possession being handed to the petitioner-society so far as consequences of section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is concerned. 34. It is not in dispute that the declaration under Section - 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 16.03.1983 and thereafter the award was computed against which the petitioner-society deposited the requisite amount way back in 1983-1984. The land was duly acquired whose validity was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequent upon the acquisition proceeding the State Government came in possession of the said parcel of land situated at Kumhrar. From the discussions made above, it is clear that the land acquisition has therefore not lapsed for want of fulfilling both the conditions cumulatively under section 24(2) of the Act in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra). Moreover, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore quoted decision, the consequence of deemed lapse is attracted and is applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned, which is not the case in this writ petition. The land in question at Kumhrar was duly acquired by the State Government and therefore as a statutory consequence, the State Government held the possession of the said parcel of land at Kumhrar however for one reason or another the actual physical possession could not be delivered to the petitioner-society. It may be emphasized that the possession on paper was handed over to the petitioner-society and thereafter the re-possession was also handed over to the petitioner-society. The decision of the Additional Chief Secretary taken in the meeting dated 07.02.2024 by which the authority came to the conclusion that the land acquisition proceeding stands lapsed is therefore held to be unsustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indoor Development Authority (supra) and the same principle which has been reiterated in the case of Sur Bihari Mandal (supra). 35. 35. In the present case, the authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with law and in compliance of the various orders of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various proceedings including the contempt proceeding. The right of the petitioner-society stood crystalized in terms of various judicial orders including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 36. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions. (i) The respondent authorities are directed to hand over the actual physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land situated at Kumhrar, Patna to the petitionersociety within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after removing the encroachments thereupon, if any, in accordance with law. Alternatively, if the authorities are not able to give physical possession of 16.2489 acres of land at Kumhrar, Patna within the stipulated time in terms of the direction as above, then the respondent authorities shall allot 16.2489 acres of land in favour of the petitioner-society within the Patna Municipal area within next three months. (ii) The respondents are directed to execute the lease deed in terms of the order dated 28.03.2024 issued by the Collector, Patna within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and thereafter the respondent authorities shall take all necessary action to give actual and physical possession of the aforesaid land situated at Gardanibagh, Patna within another two months after removing the encroachments, if any.