Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24015 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Abhash Anand Son Of Late Jai Shankar Jha Resident Of Purani Bazar, Ward No. 10, District- Madhepura 2. Sikandar Bhagat Son Of Domi Bhagat Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 3. Dinesh Prasad Yadav Son Of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 4. Dip Narayan Yadav Son Of Bhagwat Prasad Yadav Resident Of Navtolia, Ward No. 2, District- Madhepura 5. Tula Krishna Yadav Son Of Late Deo Narayan Yadav Resident Of Navtolia, Ward No. 2, District- Madhepura 6. Bhuneshwari Yadav Son Of Late Deo Narayan Yadav Resident Of Navtolia, Ward No. 2, District- Madhepura 7. Sumed Lal Yadav Son Of Late Yamun Yadav Resident Of Pathraha, Ward No. 4, District- Madhepura 8. Nand Kishore Bhagat Son Of Late Narayani Bhagat Resident Of Ward No. 10, District- Madhepura 9. Jitendra Bhagat Son Of Budhdeo Barai Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 10. Domi Sah Son Of Ramji Sah Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 11. Nisar Ahmad Son Of Abdul Hakim Resident Of Ward No. 11, Madhepura 12. Mahesh Kumar Son Of Late Shrawan Bhagat Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 13. Bisheshwar Yadav Son Of Late Krishna Yadav Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 14. Moti Thakur Son Of Rabbi Thakur Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura 15. Bishundeo Prasad Yadav Son Of Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 8, District- Madhepura Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner Koshi Pramandal Bihar, Saharsa 3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura 4. The Deputy Secretary To The Govt. Department Of Revenue And Land Reforms Bihar, Patna 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhepura 6. The Additional Collector, Madhepura 7. The District Sub-Registrar, Madhepura 8. The Executive Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Nigam, Bhagalpur Pramandal, Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Raju Giri, G.P.30 Mr. V.R. Bharti J.C. to G.P.30 Mr. Nikhil Kr. Agrawal, J.C. to G.P.30 Patna High Court CWJC No.24015 of 2013 (2) dt.20-12-2013 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 2 20-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding for acquisition in terms of new Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012, which is said to have been passed by the Legislation in the month of September, 2013 and accordingly quash the notice issued under Section 9 (3) (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also to quash the notices as contained in Annexure-4 series issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act and for consequential reliefs.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the new Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( in short the „Act‟) has now come into force, hence, the case of the petitioners ought to be considered in terms of the provisions of the said Act. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that although the said Act received the assent of the President of India on 26th September, 2013 and was published in the Gazette of India on 27th September, 2013 but under Section 1 (3) of the Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.24015 of 2013 (2) dt.20-12-2013 3 it has been provided that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint and according to instructions received by him no such notification bringing the Act into force has been published. It is further submitted by him that even if the Act comes into force then under the provisions of Section 24 (1) (b) of the Act where an award under Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as if the said Act has not been repealed. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the provisions of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act and submits that since the award has been made in the month of August, 2013, hence, the same would come within the purview of the said Act and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. It is evident from the proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 1 of the 2013 Act that the Central Government has been mandated to appoint the date of coming into force of the Act within three months from the date the Bill in question receives the assent of the President which was on 26.9.2013. Thus, even if the Act was to come into force on 26th December, 2013 then, as of today, no right accrues to the petitioner under the Act. However, Patna High Court CWJC No.24015 of 2013 (2) dt.20-12-2013 4 assuming that the petitioners may have become entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the new Act or may so become in a week from today, it would be important to examine the provision of Section 24 of the Act which is in the following terms:- “24. (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, 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.24015 of 2013 (2) dt.20-12-2013 5 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.” It is clear from the aforesaid provision that where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made then all the provisions of the new Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply but where an award under Section 11 has already been made, then such proceedings are to continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act is concerned, the same is clearly misconceived. The said provision relates to an award which has been made at least five years or more before the commencement of the Act but the physical Patna High Court CWJC No.24015 of 2013 (2) dt.20-12-2013 6 possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed leaving it to the State Government to initiate a fresh proceeding. Thus the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the new Act is applicable where the award under Section 11 of the Act has been made five years or more before the commencement of the new Act but the physical possession has not been taken or alternatively if the compensation has not been paid, then only the proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed. The said provision obviously would not apply to the case of the petitioners where the award has been admittedly made in the month of August, 2013. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed therein and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to seek a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act with respect to the amount of compensation. In case any such application is filed by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today then the Collector shall consider the same keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been pursuing their remedy before this Court. V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)