[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Sunil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 May, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5894 of 2017
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Singh Son of late Ram Naresh Singh Resident of Singh Kothi,
Old G.T. Road, P.O. , P.S. Town and District Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director of Land Acquisition, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Aurangabad,
Bihar.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar.
6. The District Magistrate and Collector, Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Ms. Jaya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap Singh, Advocate
Ms. Aditi Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Hritik Anand, Advocate
Mr. Astitva, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha-SC-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 16-05-2025
Heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application is filed for the following
reliefs:-
(i) for a declaration that the land acquisition
proceedings being L.A. Case No. 20/72-73 initiated
under the “Land Acquisition Act, 1894” shall be
deemed to have lapsed in view of section 24(2) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
2/11
(ii) for a direction to the respondents to withdraw
from the acquisition of the petitioner’s land
admeasuring 0.75 Acre comprised in Khata No. 26
Khesra No. 307 of which physical possession has
never been taken;
(iii) for a direction to the respondents to de-notify
the aforesaid land from the aforesaid land
acquisition proceeding and further to release the
aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner; and/or
for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may
be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
3. The facts as mentioned in writ petition is/are as
follows:-
On 11.08.1972, a declaration under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) was
published in the official gazette issued by the Department of
Revenue (Acquisition Section), Bihar (henceforth for short ‘the
Department’) with a proposal for construction of Rajkiya
Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Aurangabad (henceforth for short
‘the School’) (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that it included
a piece of his ancestral land recorded as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
3/11Khata No. 26, Khesra No. 307, Thana No. 560,
Aurangabad (Area-0.75 decimal).
It is the further case of the petitioner that the land
always remained in his peaceful physical possession and the
revenue receipts were also continuously issued in his favour.
5. The contention is that ‘the School’, however, came
to be constructed at a different place at Dharnidhar Road,
Aurangabad and the land in question remained unused.
6. The further stand of the petitioner is that the letter
no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 issued by the State of Bihar,
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna
records that if the acquired land remains unused, the same can
be returned to the land owners. The said letter no. 123 dated
12.01.1979 read as follows:-
[i= la0 123 Mh0 ,y0 ,0 uhfr&1@78 fn0 12-1-1979]
[izs’kd& v:i dqekj clq] ljdkj ds fo”ks’k lfpo] lsok esa] lHkh
lekgrkZ@lHkh mik;qDrA
fo”k;%& Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 ds vUrxZr vftZr Hkwfe
dh vf/klwfpr iz;kstu ds fy, vko”;drk u gksus ij
okilhA
funs”kkuqlkj eq>s dguk gS fd gky ds dbZ ,d ,sls
mnkgj.k ls ljdkj fpfUrr gks jgh gS fd tgka vf/k;kph
foHkkx ;k izkf/kdkjh o”kksZa igys dkQh tehu fdlh fo”ks”k mn~ns”;
ls Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 ds vUrxZr] vf/kdka”kr% vkifRr
izfdz;k ls vftZr djok dj] vc mldh vko”;drk ugha gS
dgrs gq, nwljs izfr’Bku ;k foHkkx ds lkFk cUnkscLr djus ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
4/11fy, ljdkj ls vuqjks/k dj jgs gSaA ,sls ekeyksa esa ljdkj dh
xgjh fpUrk dk fo”ks’k dkj.k eq[;r% ;g gS fd xjhc fdlkuksa
dh tehu dks] vtZu ds ckn] yEcs vjlksa rd csdkj NksM+ j[kus
ls fdlkuksa dh ijs”kkuh ds vykos [kk|kUu ds mRiknu esa deh ls
Hkkjh jk’Vªh; Nfr Hkh gksrh gSA buds vfrfjDr] ljdkj vftZr
Hkqfe ds bl izdkj ds ysu&nsus dks uSfrd n`f’Vdks.k ls
leFkZu;ksX; ;k vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha le>rh gS] D;ksafd fdlh fo”ks’k
yksdfgr dk iz;kstu crkrs gq, fdlh tehu dks vftZr dj] ckn
esa mldk ml yksd iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ugha dj nwljs
mn~ns”; ls cUnkscLr djus dh ckr dks ljdkj lEc)
Hkw&Lokfe;ksa dks /kks[kk nsuk le>rh gSA ;g Li’Vr% xSj&dkuwuh
dke Hkh gSA okLro esa] ftl foHkkx ds fy, Hkwfe dk vtZu fd;k
tkrk gS] ml foHkkx dks] mldh vko”;drk ugha jgus ij] ,slh
tehu dks nwljs fdlh dks gLrkUrfjr djus] ;k nwljs fdlh ds
lkFk cUnkscLr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA fu;e
nwcFkZghu :i ls Li’V gS fd yksd iz;kstu ds fo”ks’k mn~ns”; ls
vftZr Hkwfe tc vf/k;kph foHkkx dks] vko”;d ugha gS] rks ,slh
tehu dks mUgsa izR;kfir (relinquish) dj nsuk gS vkSj
rnksijkUr ,slh Hkwfe dk fu’iknu jktLo foHkkx }kjk gh fd;k
tkuk gSA
2- jkT; ljdkj us ,sls ekeyksa dh c<+rh gqbZ la[;k dks
ns[krs gq, ;g uhfrxr fu.kZ; ysus dh d`ik dh gS fd tc fdlh
foHkkx dks fdlh yksd iz;kstu ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe dh
vko”;drk ugha jgsxh rks ,slh vfrfjDr ¼ljIkyl½ Hkwfe dks og
foHkkx jktLo foHkkx dks vkSipkfjd :i ls okil dj nsxk] ,slh
Hkwfe ds uD”kk ,oa [ksljk uEcj vkfn lkjs fooj.k ds lkFkA
jktLo foHkkx lHkh ljdkjh foHkkx] ftuesa jkT; ljdkj ,oa
dsUnzh; ljdkj nksuksa vkSj ljdkj ds fu;a=.kk/khu yksd
mn~;e ;k midze Hkh gksaxs] ,slh Hkwfe dh vko”;drk ds ckjs esa
iwN&rkN djus ds ckn] ;fn fdlh dh vko”;drk ugha gks rks]
Hkwfe dks HkwriwoZ Hkw&Lokfe;ksa dks okil dj nsxkA bl chp HkwriwoZ
Hkw&Lokeh ds nsgkUr gksus ij tehu muds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks
okil dj nh tk,xhA ,slh n”kk esa okil dh tkus okyh tehu
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
5/11ds fy, ,sls jS;rksa ls mruh jkf”k yh tk;sxh ftruh ml Hkwfe
vtZu ds le; mUgsa vf/kfu;e 1894 ds vUrxZr eqvkotk ds :i
esa] Hkqxrku fd;k x;k FkkA lkFk gh] ykSVk;h x;h tehu ij
muds iwoZ esa dk”rdkjh vf/kdkj ¼VsusUlh jkbV½ Fkk] ogh
jgsxk ,oa Hkw&vtZu ds QyLo:i tks yxku dk U;wuhdj.k fd;k
x;k Fkk] og yxku fQj ls muds [kkrs esa tksM+ fn;k tk,xkA
3- vuqjks/k gS fd Hkfo’; esa fdlh Hkh foHkkx ;k vf/k;kph
izkf/kdkjh ds }kjk vfrfjDr vftZr Hkwfe okil djus ds ekeyksa esa
iwoZxkeh dafMdk esa fn, x, funs”kkuqlkj vko”;d dkjZokbZ djus
dh d`ik djsaA jkT; ds bl uhfr laca/kh fu.kZ; ls vkids ftyk
ds lHkh foHkkx ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks d`i;k voxr djk;k tk;A
7. The contention as explained/submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel is that since they were in continuous
peaceful physical possession of the land in question and the
State of Bihar never took it back nor they got/ received any
compensation, the authorities were regularly approached,
persuant thereto, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,
Aurangabad vide his office letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004
addressed to ‘the Department’ informed that the amount has not
been received by the original land holder and the representation
has been received by his son (the petitioner herein). It has been
further informed by the Executive Engineer, Building Division,
Aurangabad that the land is not needed as ‘the School’ building
has come up at other place, the direction of Education
Department is not required in this connection for the release of
the land and in that background, steps can be taken for its
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
6/11release under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition).
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite the
said positive communication by the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, Aurangabad and repeated representations by the
petitioner, the decision has still not been taken by ‘the
Department’.
9. He submits that later, in the year 2006 also, under
the joint signature of the Collector, Aurangabad, the
Additional Collector, Aurangabad as well as District Land
Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad vide memo no. 93 dated
11.10.2006, a direction was given to put a notice on the offices
of the District Collectorate, Civil Court, Zila Parishad, Nagar
Parishad as also the Sub-Divisional Office as to whether the
land is required for any other public purpose by either the State
Government Departments, Corporations or Central Government
Undertakings or not. (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)
10. He submits that even thereafter, no such proposal
came and in that background, it is clear that the unutilized land
which is still in the family’s physical possession, a decision is
warranted from the side of the respondents which they have
failed to do till date.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
7/11
11. In support of the claim of the petitioner, the
learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to an order of the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Bimal
Kumar Shah and Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 with
special reference to para 33.7. which reads as follows:
33.7. The Right of Conclusion
33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of acquisition
and payment of compensation, the State takes
possession of the property in normal circumstances.
The culmination of an acquistion process is not in
the payment of compensation, but also in taking over
the actual physical possession of the land. If
possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete.
With the taking over of actual possession after the
normal procedures of acquisition, the private
holding is divested and the right, title and interest in
the property, or its beneficiary’s right, title and
interest in the property is inconclusive and causes
lot of difficulties. The obligation to conclude and
complete the process of acquisition is also part of
Article 300-A.
12. It is to be noted that the matter was taken up by a
co-ordinate bench on 13.09.2018 and the same was adjourned
directing the respondents to file counter affidavit. As the order
recorded that the matter is to be listed after filing of the counter
affidavit, neither the writ petition could see the light of the day
for seven long years nor the State chose to file any affidavit.
13. It is only in this month that a short affidavit has
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
8/11
come on behalf of the District Collectorate in which the stand
has been taken as submitted by the learned State counsel that the
matter is old one, the physical possession of the land was
delivered to the requisitioning Department (the Education
Department) and after decades, no relief can be granted.
14. The State in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit
states that they have delivered the physical possession of the
land to the requisitioning Department on 25.09.1981. Para 13
read as follows:
13. That it is humbly submitted that after
completion of process of acquisition under the
Act, the physical possession over the acquired
land in question was delivered to the
requisitioning department on 25.09.1981.
15. The reply to the counter affidavit has also come on
the record and para 11 of the rejoinder read as follows:
11. That it is humbly submitted that the
averments made in Para 13 is denied as false
and unsubstantiated. The Respondents have
failed to bring on record any document in
support of possession being delivered of the land
in question on 25.09.1981. On the contrary, the
petitioner has been in continued possession of
the said land and the revenue
receipts/Jamabandi continue in his name. Even
on present date the petitioner possess the L.P.C.
and paying rent to the government.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
9/11
16. Having heard the parties and perusing the records of
the case, the following points have come up for consideration
which are as follows:
(i) the land in question was acquired for the
construction of a Girls School;
(ii) the compensation amount was not
paid/received by the petitioner’s father;
(iii) the Girls School now stand at Dharnidhar
Road, Aurangabad;
(iv) the land is not required for any other public
purpose by any Department/Corporation/Central
Government despite the notices published;
(v) despite the positive recommendation of the
Collector, Aurangabad, the Department has chosen not to
take the final decision.
17. While filing the counter affidavit after seven long
years, that too at the District level and not by ‘the Department’,
the respondents chose not to catagorically deny the contention in
the paragraph 20 of the writ petition made by the petitioner that
till date, neither physical possession has been taken nor
compensation paid/received. As recorded above, ‘the
Department’ failed to file any reply.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
10/11
18. The facts have been recorded, the petitioner has
based his claim on the basis of letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979
issued by ‘the Department’, as recorded above, the same has
not been commented upon by the respondent in its counter
affidavit. A valid point has been put forward by the learned
Senior Counsel that the land which is in their possession,
remains unsued, the physical possession is with them and there
is recommendation of the Collector, Aurangabad which need
immediate consideration by ‘the Department’.
19. Annexure-11 Series of the reply to the counter
affidavit shows the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) is still
running in the name of the petitioner as issued on 23.04.2025.
20. This Court has also taken note of the order of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation (supra) wherein it has recorded that when the actual
possession has not been taken, the acquisition is not completed.
21. As recorded above, despite passage of seven long
years after the writ petition was filed, the respondent nos. 1 to 3
failed to file counter affidavit. This Court, in that background,
has two options; either to adjourn the matter after imposing cost
on ‘the Department’ for their failure to file reply and/or to direct
it to take a decision at an earliest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5894 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2025
11/11
22. Since the matter is of the year 2017, this Court
with the consent of parties intends to dispose of the writ petition
with the following directions:
(i) the petitioner shall be prefering a fresh application
along with all the connecting/supporting documents/Annexures
before the respondent no. 1, the Principal Secretary, Department
of Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna, Bihar within next two
weeks;
(ii) on the receipt of the said petition with documents
supporting the case, the respondent no. 1 shall be taking up the
matter and after noticing all the necessary parties, and hearing
them/perusing the records shall take the matter to its logical
conclusion preferably within a period of three months from the
date, the petitioner files the fresh petition.
23. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation. No cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
priyanka/-
U
[ad_2]
Source link