- (1.) ALL the three Letters Patent Appeals arise out of same impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge, passed in three writ petitions and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment because the questions raised in all the three Letters Patent Appeal are the same.
(2.) WHAT it appears that in the year 1960, vast area of lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation. In that acquisition of land, it is said that the lands belonging to the ancestors of the appellants were also acquired. According to the case of the appellants, a survey was conducted in the year 1993 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi of the lands acquired for the M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation and it was found that 2555.71 Decimals of land was lying unutilised. The appellants further say that in the year 1979, the Government of Bihar took a policy decision by issue of Letter No. 123/DLA/Policy1/78. dated 12.01.1979, as contained in Annexure -7, to return back the lands which were lying unutilised to the original land owners, since it was not being used for the very public purpose. According to the appellants, the lands belonging to their ancestors, though were acquired for M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation, but the same are still lying unutilised as surplus and therefore, as per the policy decision of the Government which taken in the year 1979 (Annexure -7), the petitioners were entitled to be returned back their lands.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge, by impugned Judgment and order dated 14.08.2006, dismissed all the three Writ Petitions relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar by holding as follows: In my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. They could not show under what provisions of law, the purported circular/policy decision of the Government of Bihar, was issued. They also could not show how they derive right of restoration of land on the basis of the letters of the District Officers, especially when they are denied and disputed by H.E.C. Such circular/policy/letters relied by the petitioners are clearly inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, the petitioners could not prove that H.E.C. has got surplus land. Even if some lands have not been used, it cannot be said that they are surplus. In my opinion, this case is fully covered by the judgment of Govt. of A.P. (Supra).;