Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Prakash Chandra Verma, Vikash Jain, JJ.
Abhishek Kumar S/O Ramanand Prasad Resident Of Village- Chainpura, P.O- Dariyapur, P.S- Naubatpur, District- Patna (Bihar), Pin Code-801109 (in 21307)
Rajan Sharma, S/o. late Chulhan Singh, R/o. Vill. Kopa, Kala, P.O. + P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna. & Ors. (in 580) - Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Land Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna & Ors - Respondent/s
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21307 of 2011 with LPA 580 of 2008
Decided on : 06-07-2012
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey (in 21307)
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Dhurandhar Pd. Chy (in 21307)
The court emphasized the supremacy of public purposes, industrialization, and revenue generation in justifying the land acquisition and allotment, overriding individual rights and objections.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Bihar Industrial Area Development Act, 1974 - Section 17(1) - Section 17(4) - Section 5A - Article 14 - Article 21 - Article 300A
Fact of the Case:
The writ application and L.P.A. challenge the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the State Government to set up an industrial area and the allotment of land for a beer industry. The petitioners argue that the allotment frustrates the public purpose for which the land was acquired and violates their rights under the Constitution. They also claim non-payment of compensation and irregularities in the acquisition process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition and allotment were for public purposes, including industrialization and revenue generation. It rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the public purpose, urgency clause, and delay in filing the writ petition. The court dismissed the writ petition and L.P.A.
Issues: Validity of land acquisition and allotment for a beer industry, compliance with compensation and acquisition procedures, invocation of urgency clause, delay in filing the writ petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition and allotment were for public purposes, emphasizing the industrialization and revenue generation objectives. It also found that the urgency clause was valid and rejected the petitioners' claims of delay and non-payment of compensation.
Final Decision: The writ petition and L.P.A. were dismissed, affirming the validity of the land acquisition and allotment for public purposes.
This writ application and L.P.A. have been filed in which challenge has been made to the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated vide L.A. No.19 of 2007-08 whereby the State Government has acquired 96.71 acres of land to set up an industrial area at village- Kopakala, Naubatpur, District- Patna and also for quashing the allotment letter dated 03.06.2011 contained under Ref: No.2815/D issued by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as „BIADA?) annexed as Annexure-4 by which BIADA has allotted 42 acres of land out of aforesaid 96.71 acres to United Breweries Limited for establishment of a beer industry and also for quashing the entire process of land acquisition under notification dated 10.12.2007 issued by the Land Acquisition Directorate under the Revenue and Land Reforms Department contained in Annexure-1.
2. The writ petition as well as the L.P.A. was disposed on 31.03.2012 on the concession granted to Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the appellant in L.P.A. that he moved the application for review/recall of the order withdrawing his concession accordingly, the order so was recalled on 16.05.2012.
Parties were heard on merit on the writ petition and L.P.A. and were also required to give their written argument. The written arguments filed by the respective parties are taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allotment letter is illegal and it frustrates the very public purpose in the garb of which the acquisition was made. The government has played fraud upon the citizens of the State by allotting the land to establish a beer factory. The land acquired for Sugar Mill cannot be allotted for establishment of a beer factory. The Government cannot do business over the lands of its citizens. The action and omission on the part of the Government is violative of the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India. For the acquisition purpose Land Acquisition Case No.19 of 2007-08 was instituted before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna. Although after preparation of award notices were issued for payment of 80% amount on the fixed dates under Section 17A of the Act but nothing has been paid so far to any of the petitioner. It is worth mentioning here that the notices were also not served upon all the petitioners.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that one Rajan Sharma being one of the victims of the aforesaid irregular acquisition proceeding, preferred CWJC No.921 of 2008 challenging the acquisition. The aforesaid writ application was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2008 against which LPA No.580 of 2008 is connected with the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the acquisition was made for establishment of a sugar factory which might be in public interest keeping in view the production of sugarcane and employment but nonetheless no one turned up before the Government showing its interest in establishment of Sugar Mill. The BIADA time and again advertised the availability of the acquired land for establishment of the Sugar Mill inviting interest from the interested entrepreneur but of no avail. Suddenly the BIADA for the reasons best known to the concerned authorities, issued an allotment letter dated 03.06.2011 contained in reference No.2815/D in favour of one M/S. United Breweries Ltd. Allotting thereby 42 acres of land out of aforesaid acquired land on lease of 90 years for the purpose of establishment of a Beer Industry. The BIADA charged Rs.46934748/- from M/S United Breweries Ltd., at the rate of more than Rs.11 lakhs per acre which is more than twice the compensation amount of about Rs.5.5 lakhs per acre as per the aforesaid notice.
6. It is further submitted that respondent No.7 has started changing the nature of the land. It will be very difficult for the petitioners and others to regain the nature o
