- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner M/s. Jetmull Bhojraj, a partnership firm, for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith enter the name of the petitioner -firm in the Jamabandi records of right by opening demand and also showing the Government of Sikkim as mortgages in possession over the land in question.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in the year, 1944 -46 it was notified by Raja of Tilaiya and Raja Kasmi in the Chhotanagpur area to assist in the development of the region. The petitioner -firm took raiyati settlement of about 3500 Acres of land in Village -Tilaiya and Debipur within Koderma Police Station in the district of Hazarlbagh (now Koderma), under different registered Pattas with an intention to establish a modern mechanised agricultural farm after acquiring forest. With the object aforesaid, the petitioner -firm built quarters, shades for labourers, roads, culverts, projects, and excavated tanks and water reservers in pursuance of programme started by Government of India after independence known as Grow More Food for Nation. The petitioner -firm approached the Chogyal of Sikkim for fund for which the petitioner mortgaged the lands at Tilaiya as security creating Hen in favour of the Government of Sikkim including the right of possession. The petitioner also applied for loan from the State Government for development of lands and on 2nd December, 1947 loan of Rs. 41,865/ - was granted by the State, which was invested for development of the land. The petitioner - firm also invested huge amount of money but before it could get any return, the State Government issued a notification dated 11th June, 1948 under Sections 14 and 21 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 (Bihar Act IX of 1948) declaring the lands in ques -tion as protected forest. In pursuance of the said notification, the State Government took possession of lands from the petitioner though there was no power under the Act to acquire raiyati lands. Later the State Government when realised the legal flaw in the notification, issued under the Bihar Private Forest Act, issued another notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act (Act XVI of 1927). Further case of the petitioner is that the second notification under Section 29 was misconceived in law as the State could not have taken possession of land, nonetheless the State continued to remain in possession of the lands in question, which belonged to the petitioner. Subsequently, releasing its mistake and in order to requlartse the matter relating to possession and its title a requisition was made on 24th January, 1959 submitted by Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma Division, to the Government wherein, it was accepted that the land in question were already in possession of the Government and wrongly notification under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act has been issued though it should have been acquired under the provisions of the Art. In pursuance of the aforesaid requisition, a notification was is sued on 30th March, 1959 by the State under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act, stating, infer alia, that the lands were required to be taken at public expenee for a public purpose for including them within the demarcated area of the Tilaiya protected forest in Village -Tilaiya and Bobipur protected forest in Village -Bibipur. It was also stated that in view of urgency of the project in exercise of power conferred by Section 17(4) of the Act. The Government decided that the provision of Section 5A of the Act were not to apply and a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19th May, 1949 followed by notice under Section 9 issued on 4th August, 1959 by the State. In pursuance of such notice, the petitioner is stated to have preferred its claim before the Land Acquisition Officer Kodernui by his letter No. 5110 dated 11th August, 1959, informed the Land Acquisition Officer that the dates of taking over of possession of the land were 8th December, 1953 and 22nd November, 1954. The compensation was also assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide letter dated 22nd November, 1960, showing a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ - as compensation payable to the petitioner with interest @ 6 p.c.p.a. from 8th December, 1953 and 22nd November, 1954. It appears that for one or other reason, there was delay in payment of compensation for which a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before Patna High Court for completion of Land Acquisition proceeding in respect of the lands in question, which gave rise to MJC No. 615 of 1963. The Patna High court by its judgment and order dated 28th February, 1966 directed the Stale to transmit all records to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, who, in his turn, was asked to complete the Land Acquisition proceeding in accordance with law. Thereafter, the State Government sanctioned compensation amount of Rs. 6,44,892.11 paise together with interest and estimated compensation was revised to Rs. 7,92,950.25 paise by the Land Acquisition Officer. Later the State Government by its order dated 14th June, 1966 cancelled the earlier sanction and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to re -evaluate the lands afresh after deciding status and classification. Subsequently on preparation of award, the petitioner being dissatisfied, preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act and during pendency of reference, petitioner received compensation amount under protest.
(3.) A writ petition bearing CWJC No. 435 of 1966 was preferred by the petitioner along with another challenging the notification dated 12th August, 1966 issued under Section 48(1) of the Act regarding partial withdrawal from the acquisition. It was dismissed by the Patna High Court vide its judgment dated 14th October, 1966 holding, infer alia, that on the materials produced before the Court, it was unable to find that the Govt. had taken possession of the land in question Jethmull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 Pat. 287. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jethmull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1972 SC 1363. The Supreme Court observed that even in cases of urgency the Government may think it necessary to take immediate possession for good reasons.;