JAIRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of a portion of the land bearing plot No. 1963 of Khata No. 98 in village Katar. Katar High English School, Shahabad, is situated to adjoining plots 1965, 1967, 1968 and 1964. The hostel building is constructed on plot No. 1962. There is a road in front of the school building. In between the road and the hostel building lies the land of plot No. 1963 which belonged to petitioner No. 1. A portion of plot No. 1963 which belonged to the co-sharer of petitioner No. 1 was acquired by the school sometime in 1963. Proceeding for acquisition of the land of plot No. 1963 measuring 42 decimals was started under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Collector of Shahabad at the instance of Ramnagina Singh, the then Secretary of Katar High English School. A general notice in Form 3 (annexure A) under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) as amended by Bihar Act XI of 1961 was issued in the following words:

(2.) In the writ application the petitioners have alleged that Shri Ramnagina Singh, resident of village Katar had covetous eyes upon the land on account of its enviable site. He attempted to acquire it at lower price but he failed. Therefore, he laid a trap for acquiring through the medium of the school and, therefore, he made an application to the Collector of Arrah for the acquisition of the land and by bringing the offices of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Collector of Arrah in collusion and under mis-representation, he got the notifications under Section 4, 6 and Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act issued and served Batabala. He alleged that the Collector under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 found during enquiry that individual notices under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act were suppressed and not served upon the locality. The alleged notifications have been made annexure A and A/1 to this writ application. It is further alleged that it was found from the records that the Headmaster and the Secretary of the school fraudulently obtained the signature of a minor boy Ramchandra Singh, son of petitioner No. 1 who was reading in the school by calling him from the class room on the notification under Section 4 and 17(4) of the Act without allowing him to know its contents by bringing the service peon in their collusion contrary to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. The notice is made annexure B. It is contended that the notices and the notifications were not properly made and issued and the description of the land was also not correctly given therein. According to the petitioners, the disputed land contained a house, deity, chabutra, and Dhawaja but the notices did not mention this fact and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer otherwise no action could have been taken for acquisition of the land. The land was neither waste nor arable, therefore, the provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(4) are not attracted to the facts of the case and the dispensing of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act was illegal and ultra vires. It is asserted that the notifications under Sections 6 and 9 were issued without following the proper procedure. It is further alleged that the notifications and notices for acquisition were issued mala fide, fraudulently and collusively for the purpose of taking the land by the Secretary himself in the name of the school. The petitioners attacked the various notifications as collusive and mala fide and, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the orders, notifications, award etc, connected with the land acquisition proceedings.

(3.) The Headmaster of Katar High English School as well as its management through the present secretary, Rambachan Singh have appeared and shown cause and have filed a counter affidavit sworn by the Secretary Rambachan Singh. They have denied the allegations made by the petitioners in their petition. They have asserted that a portion of plot No. 1963 was acquired by the school by a registered deed of exchange with the co-sharer of petitioner No. 1 to whom it belonged. There is no house on the land in question nor is there installed any idol of Mahabirji. The land in possession of the school was not sufficient and therefore the disputed land was acquired for the purposes of the buildings of the school. It is true that the school has three highas of land at village Amar which is at a distance of two miles west of the school. Notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was duly served. They further asserted that Ramchandra Singh son of petitioner No. 1 was not a student of the school on the alleged date of service of notice (annexure B) under Section 4 read with Section 17(4). The alleged date of service of notice i.e., 11-8-1963 was a Sunday and the school did not sit on that date. The whole allegation of petitioner No. 1 that the notice was served on his Son by calling him from his class room and taking his signature without letting him know the contents of the notice was entirely false, unfounded and baseless. Ram Chandra Singh was aged about 18 years when the notice was served on him. No fraud or collusion, was committed by the secretary of the school. The fact of acquisition was known to petitioner No. 1 from the very beginning and after service of the notice under Section 4, he executed fraudulent sale deeds without any consideration in favour of wealthy persons so that they may carry on litigations. The petitioner No. 1 never raised any objection in the acquisition proceeding which lasted about four years. The possession of the acquired land had been duly delivered to the school which is in possession of the same.