D.N. PATEL, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondents of Civil Review No.95 of 2012. The Civil Review application was preferred by the respondent which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the earlier order passed in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4566 of 2011 dated 8th August, 2012 was dismissed and now in Civil Review application the writ petition was allowed on the detailed arguments canvassed by the counsel for the original petitioner.

2. It appears from the facts of the case that the land in question was acquired by the State of Jharkhand for construction of Ring Road for the capital city Ranchi of the State of Jharkhand. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 2nd June, 2011. Several plots were acquired including the plot in question i.e. plot no. 335.

3. It further appears from the facts of the case that the total land acquired was 14.43 acres.

4. It further appears from the facts of the case that Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also invoked which is a special power vested in the State in case of urgency. This notification was published on

4th June, 2011.

5. It further appears from the facts of the case that the respondent is original petitioner who is holding 4.28 acres of land in plot no.335 situated at village Garke. Out of the aforesaid holding of the respondent (original petitioner) the land acquired for the Ring Road purpose by the State Government is 1.28 acres only.

6. It further appears from the facts of the case that earlier the respondent had preferred one more writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4566 of 2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.08.2012 against which L.P.A. No. 388 of 2012 was preferred which was dismissed as withdrawn by the respondent (original petitioner) vide order dated 29th November, 2012 however, liberty was reserved with the respondent to file review application in the writ petition because the issue raised under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, was not decided by the learned Single Judge.

7. Hence, the respondent (original petitioner) preferred Civil Review No.95 of 2012 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18th June, 2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and later on vide further order dated 26th June, 2015 in the same Civil Review No.95 of 2012 even the liberty reserved with the State to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 was also withdrawn. Thus, if two orders are read jointly one is dated 18th June, 2015 and second is dated 26th June, 2015 in Civil Review No.95 of 2012, the power of the State to invoke Section 17-urgency is now quashed and set aside as well as power of the State to proceed further under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 onwards is also taken away.

8. It further appears from the facts of the case that under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, several plots have been acquired for construction of Ring Road for the city of Ranchi, State of Jharkhand. If Section 4 notification as well as invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is quashed and set aside perhaps, the whole construction of Ring Road will be illegal. All other owners of their properties have accepted the notification under Section 4 as well as under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Reasons:

9. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the construction of the Ring Road itself is an urgency. Reasons of urgency have already been given by the Government which has been discussed by the learned Single Judge in the internal page no.4 of the order. The said reasons as enumerated in supplementary counter affidavit filed by the appellants in Civil Review application reads as under:

“(i) After cr