S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING a declaration that the land acquisition proceeding initiated in L.A. Case No. 12 of 2005 and L.A. Case No. 13 of 2005 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency under Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the owner of homestead land and tree standing thereon in village Dundua and Raham. For construction of North Karanpura Super Thermal Power Project, vide Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2006, 28.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 about 2,300 acres of land in six villages in Chatra District was sought to be acquired under Section 17 of 1894 Act and accordingly, L.A. Case No. 12 of 2005 and L.A. Case No. 13 of 2004 were initiated. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 30,629/ - for 0.04 decimals of land and 11,76,468/ - for residence on 27.12.2007. Additionally, the petitioner received award of Rs. 95,484/ - for two bore -wells. The petitioner received compensation for raiyati land and for standing tree for village Raham also on 14.11.2007. The Respondent No. 5 -North Karanpura Super Thermal Power Project has paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - in lump -sum as extra package. It is stated that the petitioner after receiving the award amount is in continuous possession of his land and the respondent -State has not taken actual physical possession, till date. It is stated that a meeting for resolving the dispute raised by Village Development Advisory Committee was held on 27.11.2013. It is alleged that the Resolution dated 27.11.2013 and 04.12.2013 were passed in connivance with some villagers and the respondents are forcing the villagers to execute agreement for avoiding the provisions of 2013 Act. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) MR . Dilip Kumar Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admits that the land in question was acquired by the respondent -State for construction of North Karanpura Super Thermal Power Project and the petitioner received compensation for his property however, the petitioner has remained in continuous possession of the land and his residence and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition of the petitioner's land has lapsed. In support of the above contention the learned counsel relies on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India and others", reported in : 2015 AIR SCW 52 and "Union of India & Ors. v. Shiv Raj & Others", reported in : (2014) 6 SCC 564 and decision in "Devendra Prasad Nayak v. State of Bihar", reported in : (1995) 2 PLJR 105 and further submits that the benefit intended to be extended to land holders as contained under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act must be given to the petitioner.;