- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1959 and the compensation was received by the ancestors of the petitioners in the year 1959 itself. By this petition, the petitioners have come with the prayer that under Section 48 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act, the lands in question should be restored, because there are letters of the State Government on record as Annexures- 2 and 3 , which say that State has decided to reacquire the lands by the Revenue Department. We have considered the arguments for the petitioners. Under Section 48 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act, the State can take conscious decision of reacquiring the lands, if the compensation has not been taken. Once compensation has been taken, the question of reacquiring the lands does not arise, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. & another Vrs. Syed Akbar reported in 2004 AIR SCW 7125, in paragraph- 13 (3), which reads as under:- "13. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that ..................... (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order". Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vrs. Jaswant Singh and others reported in 2002 AIR SCW 4685 in paragraph no. 12, held as follows:- "12. If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land. In our view, there arises no question of any unjust enrichment to the appellant company". Learned counsel for the petitioners further urges that the possession was never taken. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners fails on the simple ground that the ancestor of the petitioners has accepted the compensation without any demur. Once the compensation has been accepted, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners that the possession was not taken because that would not be a correct position of law.
(3.) IN that view of the matter, invoking Section 48 of the Act cannot be considered to be a lawful proposition. IN that view of the matter, the acquisition which was completed after paying compensation in the year 1959, now it cannot be sought to be revoked or re-agitated in the year 2005, for which petition has been filed. In that view of the matter, we do not think that there is any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;