1. This writ petition is directed against the notification No. P.L.A. 16 of 1981-82 Issue No. 200/Part 8 of the Patna District Gazette dt. 1st Feb., 1982 purported to be under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby and whereunder it was declared that the lands as mentioned therein are to be acquired for public purposes and the order dt. 27th Aug., 1982 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna (respondent 3) as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the objections filed by the petitioners under S.5-A of the said Act was rejected.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. It is admitted that the respondent 5 issued a requisition to the State of Bihar for compulsory acquisition of the lands in question situate in village Rukunpura, Police Station, Danapur, which are located in the Patna Danapur Road and adjacent to East of Patna Danapur Canal. It is stated that the lands in question are within the green belt as set out by the Patna Improvement Trust in its master plan.

4. XXX

5. The petitioners have asserted that out of 2700 feet wide strip of land from east to west situated in green belt and is adjoining to east of Patna Danapur Canal on both sides of Patna Danapur road, a strip of land measuring approximately 13300 feet width and situated on the north Patna Danapur road has already been notified for compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act several years ago. However, in spite thereof the State of Bihar issued the aforementioned notification as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition purported to be under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . Thereafter, individual notices were served upon the petitioners between 20th April, 1982 to 24th April, 1982. Some of the notices are contained in Annexures-4, 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 respectively.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed objections in terms of S.5-A of the said Land Acquisition Act which are contained in Annexure-5 series. In the said objections the petitioners pointed out that they are Harijans and some of them would become landless if the said acquisition is carried out. In the said proceedings an inspection was made by the respondent 4 on 17th July, 1982. The respondent No. 4 submitted a tentative report mentioning therein that the contentions raised by the petitioners were such which require further enquiry. The said interim report dt. 17th July, 1982 is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It appears that respondent 5 also submitted comments on the objections raised by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

7. The respondent 3, however, without permitting respondent 4 to conduct a further enquiry in the matter by an order dt. 27th Aug., 1982 rejected all the objections. The said order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

8. Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised a short question. According to him the area in question having been declared to be within the green area no construction is permissible thereon and as such the purposes for which the land is sought to be acquired meaning thereby construction of houses by the respondent 5-corporation cannot be carried out and in that view of the matter the notification under S.4 of the said Land Acquisition Act had been issued mala fide and/or for unauthorised purposes.

9. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent 5. In the said counter affidavit it has not been denied that the area in question has been shown in the master plan to be a green area, but it has been contended that the said master plan is under revision as a result whereof it is proposed to reduce the width of the green belt. It has further been contended that the petitioners themselves are seeking permission to sell the land in question and as such they are violating the scheme and master plan approved by the State Government and, therefore, they have no ri