Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Rishikesh Kumar Son of Late Bagesh Wari Prasad & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms & ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10018 of 2016
Decided On : 22-06-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv., Patna University Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Adv.
The judgment establishes the principle that the failure to take physical possession of acquired land or make payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2013 can lead to the lapse of acquisition proceedings. It also emphasizes that the Act does not confer jurisdiction to decide right, title, and possession of a person.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6, Section 11 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 and challenged encroachment notices issued by the Circle Officer. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the 1950s for the expansion of Bihar Engineering College. The petitioners claimed that full compensation was not paid, and possession of the acquired land was not taken over by the State Government, leading to the lapse of the proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original awardees had received the compensation amount, but the differential enhanced amount was not paid. The court held that the failure to take physical possession of the acquired land or make payment of compensation in respect of an award prepared five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act 2013 would lead to the lapse of the acquisition proceedings. However, the court concluded that the disputed questions of possession and legal heirs could only be decided by a competent court in a regular suit.
Issues: The main issues were the non-payment of the differential enhanced compensation amount, the failure to take physical possession of the acquired land, and the claim of the petitioners as legal heirs of the original awardees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, which provides for the lapse of acquisition proceedings if physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid in cases where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act 2013. The court emphasized that the Act does not give jurisdiction to decide right, title, and possession of a person.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court stating that the disputed questions could only be decided by a competent court in a regular suit.
1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a declaration that the land acquisition proceeding arising out of L.A. Case No. 78 of 1958-59 and L.A. Case No. 63 of 1959-60 have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 2013”) and also for quashing the encroachment notices as contained in Annexure-1 series to the writ application issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna in Encroachment Case No. 03 of 2016-17 and also for issuance of declaration that petitioners are no more encroachers of the lands in question.
2. The brief facts of the present matter is that somewhere in the year 1950, on the request of Patna University, Patna, the District Administration started land acquisition proceeding of land measuring 1.939 acre and 0.707 acre of Golakpur Mohalla district Patna vide L.A. Case No. 78 of 1958-59 and L.A. Case No. 63 of 1959-60 for expansion of Bihar Engineering College (NIT), Patna. A declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act vide notification no. 11671/R dated 13.11.1958 was published in Bihar Gazette dated 19.12.1958 in respect of L.A. Case No. 78 of 1958-59. The award of the aforesaid proceeding was prepared and declared on 01.10.1964 and out of thirty awardees, twenty eight awardees were paid compensation amount and so far as remaining two awardees are concerned, they are said to be Patna Municipal Corporation as well as State of Bihar. Again an acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 63 of 1959-60 for acquisition of 0.73 acre land was initiated and a declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act vide no. 11207/R dated 23.11.1959 was published in Bihar Gazette dated 23.12.1959 but subsequently, 0.027 acre land were released and thereafter, award for 0.707 acre land was declared on 16.07.1962 and out of twenty four awardees, twenty two awardees were paid compensation amount and the remaining two awardees are Patna Municipal Corporation as well as State of Bihar, whose compensation amount was deposited in government treasury in their respective heads. The possession of some portion of acquired land was taken over whereas possession regarding remaining portion of land could not be taken over due to prolong litigation. However, it is not out of place to mention here that the land owners being not satisfied with the compensation amount approached the competent court which enhanced the compensation amount under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, several first appeals were preferred by the State Government before this Court and vide order dated 18.10.1979 this court partly allowed the above stated appeals and modified the compensation amount but the differential amount was never paid by the State Government to the land owners of the acquired lands. However, at para-7 of rejoinder dated 20.07.2016 petitioners averred that petitioner no. 7, namely, Bhushan Lal and petitioner no. 11, namely, S. Muntazir Abbas did not receive any compensation amount and similarly, at para-10 of the aforesaid rejoinder, it has been pleaded by the petitioners that ancestors of petitioners no. 12 to 16 as well as other beneficiaries of L.A. Case No. 63 of 1959-60 received the compensation amount under protest and subsequently, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, 1st, Patna enhanced the compensation amount which was challenged before this court but the challenge of the State in respect of enhancement of the compensation amount was failed up to this court and even then the State Government did not make payment of differential amount which was enhanced by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, 1st, Patna vide award dated 29.07.1967.
3. The petitioners have based their case on the ground that neither the full compensation amount was paid to them nor possession of the acquired land was taken over by the State Gov
