Fazal Ali, J. - (1.) Sometimes while taking a pragmatic and progressive action under a statute in the general public interest, which is doubtless a step in the right direction, the Government succumbs to internal or external pressures by a citizen or group of citizens so as to show special favour to them which destroys the laudable object of the nature of the action. Such a course is adopted to help a few chosen friends at the cost of the people in general and frustrates the very object of the meaningful State action. Furthermore the State action brings it into direct collision with Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The present case seems to us to be a concrete illustration of the State action taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, to be referred to as the 'Act'). What happened here is that while the Government of Bihar acquired a vast tract of land for construction of houses and allotment to the people belonging to the low and middle income groups but chose to exempt certain persons from the statutory action on purely unreasonable and illusory grounds. Fortunately, the chosen class comprised a very small number of persons whose lands consisted of a small proportion of the total acquired land.
(3.) This now brings us to the consideration of the important facts of the case. A notification under S. 4 of the Act was issued by the Government of Bihar on 19-8-74 seeking to acquire 1034.94 acres of land in village Digha for the purpose of construction of houses by the Bihar State Housing Board wherein it was mentioned that the price or compensation for the acquired land was to be paid by the Housing Board and not by the State from its own funds. By virtue of the said notification objections were called and on 12-2-76 all the objections were disposed of. A declaration under S. 6 of the Act was issued which was published on 20-2-76. On 25-3-76 the publication was received by the Department and notices were issued under S. 7 of the Act for filing claims. On 14-4-76 notification under S. 9 of the Act was issued. On 19-5-76 as many as 500 objections were filed. So far so good. Unfortunately, thereafter on 8-11-76 a representation was made by Mr. Ram Avtar Shastri, Member of Parliament, for withdrawing the acquisition proceedings, which was disposed of and dismissed in December, 1976.;