DEOLALL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1960-4-15
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on April 02,1960

DEOLALL RAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KANHAI RAI [LAWS(PAT)-2001-4-67] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In both these cases a common question of law arises for determination, namely, whether the notification of the State Government dated the 21st January, 1959. No. D.L.A.P-42/59-783-R, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, is ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
(2.)It appears that in June, 1958, respondent No. 4 the Budha Griha Nirman Sahyog Samiti, Limited, Patna, made an application to the State Government for acquiring land for construction of dwelling houses, parks, etc. for the use of the members of the Samiti. The notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the 21st January, 1959, which was published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 4th February, 1959, stating that an area of about 32.48 acres of land in village Dujra, within the Patna Municipal Corporation, as per details mentioned in the notification, was required for a public purpose. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases is that the notification made by the State Government under Section 4 is ultra vires and illegal since the copies of the notification which were published in the locality mentioned that the Government had given direction under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act that this was a case of urgency and the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply to the acquisition proceedings. It was contended further on behalf of the petitioners that the notification under Section 4, published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 4th February, 1959, did not contain any declaration of the State Government under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the form of the notification printed at page 185 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Manual, 1958 edition. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was illegal and ultra vires and all further proceedings taken in the land acquisition case must be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.)On behalf of the respondents it was contended by the learned Government Advocate that proceedings in the land acquisition case have been legally taken and the State Government have merely issued a direction under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, stating that the Collector may take, possession of the land even though no award had been made because this was a case of special urgency. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that it was not the intention of the State Government to give any direction under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and no such direction was actually given in this case. It was pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that it was open to the petitioners to file objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector in the course of the proceedings. It was submitted that the proceedings taken before the Land Acquisition Officer were not vitiated by any illegality or want of jurisdiction.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.