S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING notification dated 23.12.2006 published in the daily newspaper namely, "Prabhat Khabar" on 11.1.2007, the present writ petition has been filed. Subsequently, I.A. No. 2455 of 2012 was filed seeking quashing of communication dated 27.7.2012 and the said application was allowed vide order dated 11.9.2012. The petitioner claiming himself descendant of one Bahor Ram Ganjhu asserts that he is unemployed and his only source of livelihood is land which has been acquired through notification dated 23.12.2006. It is stated that the ancestors of the petitioner donated land for Police Station, Dharamshala, S.S. High School and Hostel and now, the petitioner and other co -sharers have been left with no other land except, the land notified vide notification dated 23.12.2006. The petitioner when came to know about the aforesaid proposal for acquisition, approached the Sub -Divisional Officer, Khunti on 28.10.2005 objecting to the proposed acquisition however, the same was not considered and suddenly, notification dated 23.12.2006 was published in the newspaper on 11.1.2007. Subsequently, a notice was published in the newspaper on 27.7.2012 directing the petitioner to receive compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) MR . V. Shivnath, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that by not considering the objection of the petitioner and invoking the emergency provision under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents have deprived the petitioner of his valuable right under Section 5 -A of the Act. Though, there are Government/Gair Mazurwa land in the vicinity however, the respondents have arbitrarily taken a decision to acquire 2.54 acres land comprised in Thana No. 90, Village -Namkum, P.S. Khunti. Referring to decision in "Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Ors." : (2012) 1 SCC 792, it is contended that the State before acquiring private land is under a duty to acquire its own land, first, so that the valuable cultural and hereditary rights of the landowners can be preserved. It is stated that the respondent -authorities without taking note of the fact that the proposed land is about 3.5 kms. away from Khunti and there is already a bus stand existing in the Khunti Town, have taken a decision to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner which cannot be sustained in law. Opposing the prayer in the writ petition, Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand submits that construction of a bus stand would be for public purpose, cannot be denied. Referring to approvals granted by different departments of the Government, the learned counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand submits that the Government took a conscious decision to construct a hi -tech bus stand at Khunti and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Government to acquire the land in question is not open to judicial review. The learned counsel refers to and relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr." : (2002) 4 SCC 160 : [2002 (2) JLJR (SC) 150]. It is stated that recently a new District of Khunti has been created and thus, construction of a new bus stand would serve the general public. It is submitted that after the award was prepared on 10.1.2009, notices were issued to the petitioner however, the petitioner declined to receive compensation and therefore, notice dated 27.7.2012 was published in the daily newspaper. It is further submitted that there is no challenge to the award dated 10.1.2009 though, the petitioner has challenged notification dated 23.12.2006 under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(3.) IN reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice dated 27.7.2012 in the daily newspaper is a conclusive proof of the fact that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and therefore, in view of Section 24(4) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency under Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. Referring to judgment in "Patasi Devi vs. State of Haryana & Ors.", : (2012) 9 SCC 503, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that even after more than 5 years, the land acquired through notification dated 23.12.2006 has not been utilised for construction and the petitioner is in possession of the same and therefore, the acquisition must be declared to have lapsed.;