Upendra Singh v. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. 17-6-2013 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29th June 2012 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10867 of 2005, the writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellants claim that their lands situated at…
Judgment
Patna High Court LPA No.9 of 2013 (2) dt.17-06-2013 Bailey Road, Pant Bhawan, Patna
#6. Secretary, Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board, Bailey Road, Pant Bhawan, Patna
#7. The Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai
#8. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Special Officer, Bihar State Produce Marketing Committee, Lakhisarai
#9. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Late Gaya Prasad Singh, R/o Village-Hasanpur, P.O.- Mahsona, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai
#10. Satish Kumar, S/o Late Girija Singh, R/o Village-Hasanpur, P.O.- Mahsona, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Senior Advocate Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Principal AAG Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to P.A.A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
#2. 17-6-2013 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29th June 2012 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10867 of 2005, the writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellants claim that their lands situated at village Jainagar, District-Lakhisarai were acquired in 1976 by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Agricultural Marketing Board. It is the case of the 3 Patna High Court LPA No.9 of 2013 (2) dt.17-06-2013 appellants that at the time of acquisition of their lands the Agricultural Marketing Board had assured the appellants that the appellants will be offered employment in the Marketing Board. Relying upon the said assurance, the appellants approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 10867 of 2005 to assert their right to employment under the so-called assurance extended by the then Agricultural Marketing Board, Lakhisarai. It is not in dispute that the Agricultural Marketing Board and the Committees in the State of Bihar have been dissolved as early as in 2006. The appellants have approached this Court almost 30 years after the acquisition. Reliance is placed on the recommendation dated 4th May 1977 made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the then Agricultural Marketing Board to provide alternative land to four persons who lost their land to the acquisition and to employ 14 marginal farmers in the Marketing Committee. Reliance is also placed on communication dated 30th August 2007 made by Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Board to the same effect. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, this Appeal. We see no merit in the claim made by the appellants. At first, neither the State Government nor the Agricultural Marketing Board at any time extended the assurance to provide employment to the persons whose lands were acquired as alleged. A mere recommendation by the Land Acquisition Officer is of no consequence. Same is true about the communication dated 30th 4 Patna High Court LPA No.9 of 2013 (2) dt.17-06-2013 August 2007 of the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Board. The Administrator appointed to manage the affairs of the Agricultural Marketing Board has undoubtedly no power to make recommendation in respect of the persons whose lands were acquired that too 30 years after the date of acquisition and a year after the dissolution of the Agricultural Marketing Board. In our opinion, neither of the aforesaid communications confers even a remote right upon the appellants to claim employment in the Agricultural Marketing Board. The claim made by the appellants is too tall and has rightly been rejected by the learned single Judge. Besides, the appellants appear to have attained the age of superannuation. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Pawan/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 29 Jun 2012. The bench was R M DOSHIT, ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.