Harish Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the Letters Patent Appeals arise out of common judgment/order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10637 of 2021 and C.W.J.C. No. 9409 of 2022 and as such with the consent of the parties, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Initially two writ petitions were filed, one being C.W.J.C. No. 10637 of 2021 seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioners from their Chak lands/holdings as fully detailed in Annexure-P/2, situated in Mauza Dubaha Bujurg without following the procedure established by law. Another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 9409 of 2022 has been filed for restraining the respondents in the work of construction of Canal over the land of the petitioners in the light of the land acquisition proceeding held in the year 1974.

4. Challenging the orders/judgment of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants have put forth manifold of submissions. It is contended that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1972-73, but the actual physical possession had not been taken of the lands of the petitioners and others of the village Dubaha Bujurg. They continued in actual physical possession of their raiyati lands. This fact also fortified for the simple reason that the Government of Bihar accepted the rent of the lands in question and issued a rent receipt in lieu thereof. The appellants also rely on the Scheme of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act, 1956’). The consolidation operation was conducted, which was closed after publication of the notification under Section 26A of the Consolidation Act, 1956 in the year 1979. Thus, there is a serious dispute with regard to the identity of the land because so called acquisition of the land of the appellants in the year 1973-74 having their identity after issuance of the fresh maps and preparation of records, which caused change in configuration of the land.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that irrespective of the fact that the respondent State has come out with records showing land acquisition was done in the year 1972-73, but no payment or any kind of award has been made to the raiyats on the basis of consolidation map khatian. The appellants have in possession, certificate of transfer in Form 15, under Section 14 of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which is the conclusive proof of the title and possession of the appellants in respect of the land. It has also been urged that some of the affected persons of the area in question were also transferred their lands through valid registered sale deeds. They are also in possession of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts for the new plots were also issued is the contention of the appellants.

6. It was also the contention of the appellants that the writ petitioners-appellants herein and their forefathers continued in peaceful possession of the land in question for the last 50 years. Even assuming the lands were acquired and possession were taken by the State Government, it was only a paper work, since the State Government by conducting the operation of Consolidation under the Consolidation Act on the land in question by issuance of rent receipts, the State has waived all their rights and admitted the title and possession of the appellants. In the aforesaid facts, the land acquisition proceeding itself lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’). Moreover, the very object of the land acquisition itself is defeated when the Gandak Project for construction of the canal was found not viable and it was abandoned in the midst of the construction work long back.

7.