MOST.RAJMUNI KUER v. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR

26.6.1989 rejecting objection of the original writ petitioner Raj Mohan Singh (since dead) as with regard to his claim over plot No. 904/8, 904/10 and 904/14 of Khata No. 641 area 0.18 decimals on the ground that he had not produced any document nor had adduced any oral evidence to support or prove his claim of being owner or person interested in the land. It is very significant to mention here that a finding of fact was also recorded by the Collector of the district that there was no material to show that the construction in question was made and there was further nothing to show whether the alleged construction is for residential purposes or whether it is for temporary nature. For the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, the learned Collector had again rejected the objection u/s 5A but this time surprisingly the original petitioner who was aware of the fact that there was a remedy of appeal before the State Government in terms of Bihar Amendment in Section 5A of the Act chose to move before this Court without 4 exhausting the statutory alternative remedy. This Court infact by an order dated

9.2.1990 had passed a limited interim order that if there be any house standing on plot no. 904 and its sub-plots, possession thereof should not be disturbed till the disposal of this writ petition. Either side till date however are not in a position to inform this Court as to whether the remaining portion of the land acquisition proceeding was completed in form of declaration u/s 6, publication of award u/s 11 and vesting of land in terms of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is, however, interesting development which would go to show that the land along with house of the petitioners actually had not only been acquired but its possession also was taken, inasmuch as in the year 1995 it was the statement made by the original writ petitioner Raj Mohan Singh interlocutory application filed in this court that the respondents were going to take possession of adjoining plot no. 902 and 903 and since the houses were also 5 standing thereon this Court should stay the entire acquisition as also taking possession of plot nos. 902 and 903. Such prayer of the petitioner however was rejected by this Court by an order dated 21.11.1995. Thereafter the matter has remained pending till date and in a period of 20 years since the date of filing of the writ application no one has been aware of the present position so as to inform this court as with regard to present status of land. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners however, would submit that in the event the respondents have not made any award after rejection of the objection of the petitioner in respect of the house in question, the statute u/s 11A would automatically lead to lapse of the entire proceedings. He, however, would clearly submit that he too is not aware as to whether such an award was made or not because he too does not have any specific instruction on that score. The situation of the counsel for the State is even worse because he does not have any records of this writ application to 6 assist this Court. Mr. Mahto in fact went a step ahead and had sought to make an alternative submission that even if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in question had not lapsed in terms of section 11A in view of the interim order passed in this case on 9.2.1990, envisaging non-computation of the period in which any order of stay of court is operative, the purpose for which the land including the house in question of the petitioner was sought to be acquired has itself ceased to exist, account abolition Agriculture Marketing Board in view of repealing of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act 1960. This Court would not like to make any comment on this submission for the reason that if other pieces of land have already been acquired and the house of the petitioner is standing in midst of such acquired land, the remaining lands having already been vested in the State of Bihar in terms of Repealing Act thus by itself would give rise to an anomalous situation if the petitioner’s house or land is allowed to 7 remain in his possession with the remaining entire adjoining land already acquired and vested in the State Government. The touch stone, therefore, for examining the validity of the proceedings would be completion of the proceedings and if the land acquisition proceedings have already been completed, merely because the petitioner’s objection u/s 5A for release of his land was not allowed by the Collector of the District that by itself would not be a sufficient ground for either setting aside the entire proceedings or allowing exemption of the house of the petitioner standing on plot no. 904 specially when from 25.2.1988 the date on which the first order under Section 5A of the Act was passed, the matter has remained pending in the court and that too with stay which have to be discounted in the period of three years in making of the Award in terms of Section 11A of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, all these aspects, however, are matter of further enquiry and therefore, this Court would remit the matter back to the Collector of Bhojpur district to find out as to 8 whether the land acquisition proceeding in question in which the impugned order u/s 5A had been passed was ever completed or not. If the Collector of Bhojpur district would find that pursuant to the impugned order u/s 5A, a declaration u/s 6 and an award u/s 11 was passed for the entire land including that of the petitioner and the possession of other portion of the land has already been taken by the State and vested in the State in terms of Section 16 of the Act the land and the house of the petitioner shall also be treated to be part of the same acquisition. If the petitioner has not received the amount of compensation under the award, its payment would be made to the petitioner in accordance with law and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, if it is found by the Collector of the district that the proceeding has not been completed and no portion of house and/or land of petitioner has been acquired by the State and the Collectorate, he shall pass an appropriate order after obtaining decision of the State Government for releasing the land and house standing on 9 plot no. 904. It is however made clear that the issue of Section 11A and lapse of proceedings shall be gone into Collector of the district on the materials on record and under a specific order of the State Government. With aforementioned observation/direction, this application is disposed of. Consequently the interim order dated 9.2.1990 passed by this Court restraining the disturbance of possession on house if any of the petitioner existing on plot no. 904 and its sub plots is also vacated and the Collector of Bhojpur district will be at liberty to deal with the land and house in question in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/