RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification contained in Letter No. 10/DLA Ranchi (Path)-60/2009- 50/Ra, Ranchi dated 12.01.2010, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended vide Bihar Act 11 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1894'), under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand (respondent No.3) whereby, he has purported to authorize the Additional Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi and his sub-ordinate officers to survey and enter upon the chunks/plots of the land, as mentioned in the said notification, which belongs to the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for quashing the declaration contained in Letter No. 10/DLA Ranchi (Path)- 60/2009-51 /Ra.Ranchi dated 12.01.2010, issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 by the Additional Secretary (respondent No.3) declaring therein that the land mentioned in the said declaration, which belongs to the petitioners, has been acquired by the respondents. It has also been prayed for quashing of four notices all dated 27.08.2010 and one notice dated 26.08.2010, issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 by the respondent No.4 calling upon the petitioners to receive compensation, as mentioned therein, for acquisition of the petitioners' land on 04.09.2010, within a period of only three days from the date of receipt of the said notices.
(2.) The brief factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner No.1 is an educational institution/school imparting education since 1952. The Government of Jharkhand conceived a plan for construction of Ring Road on the circular outskirts of Ranchi town and for the aforesaid purpose, the respondent No.3 issued notification contained in Letter No. 10/DLA Ranchi (Path)- 60/2009-50/Ra, Ranchi dated 12.01.2010 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 by invoking the urgency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894 mentioning, inter alia, that the land covered under the said notification has been acquired by the respondents and he purported to authorize the Additional Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi and his Sub-ordinate officers/employees to survey and enter upon the land belonging to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a declaration contained in Letter No. 10/DLA Ranchi (Path)-60/2009- 51/Ra, Ranchi dated 12.01.2010 under Section 6 of the Act, 1984. The petitioners were served four notices, all dated 27.08.2010 and one notice dated 26.08.2010, only on 01.09.2010 calling upon the petitioners to collect the amount of the alleged compensation on 04.09.2010.
(3.) Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that Section 17 of the Act, 1894 (as amended vide Bihar Act 11 of 1961) confers extraordinary powers to the Government authorities by dispensing with the normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894, which can only be exercised in exceptional case of urgency and such power cannot be lightly resorted to, except in case of real urgency enabling the Government to take immediate possession of the land proposed to be acquired for public purpose. It is further submitted that the respondents have violated the provisions of the Act, 1894 by surpassing the remedies available to the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 by invoking the urgency provisions of the Act, 1894. It is also submitted that the urgency provision has been incorporated in the Act, 1894 to meet extremely urgent situation and in the instant circumstance, no such urgency existed, as the respondents had conceptualized the construction of the proposed Ring Road as far back as in the year 2004-05 itself. There was more than sufficient time available to the respondents to resort to the normal procedure for acquisition of the land in question. The proposed acquisition of the land will bisect the existing premises of the school and, thus, the school will be deprived of many facilities meant for co-curricular activities of the students. It is further submitted that when any acquisition of land is to be made, the Government is under moral and legal duty to ensure that the acquisition would cause least inconvenience and dislocation of the people getting affected by such acquisition. There is ample land available around all sides of the school and by taking slightly different route, the purpose of commencement and completion of the proposed Ring Road can be fully achieved. Due to the proposed acquisition, 32 acres (approx) of land will be cut off from the school resulting into a situation that the students and staffs will have to cross the proposed Ring Road, which is not safe. It is further submitted that it is not a fact that only 4.47 acres of land is within the boundary wall, rather, 9.83 acres of land within the boundary wall of the school is proposed to be acquired. It is also not a fact that most of the land proposed to be acquired belongs to other raiyats and if the respondents have paid compensation to the other raiyats without following the due procedure provided under the Act, 1894, the land acquisition is at the risk of the respondents. Although the construction of Ring Road is a public requirement, but it is not so emergent that a valuable right of the land holder under section 5A of the Act, 1894 could be taken away. It is further submitted that by virtue of the amendment carried out by the erstwhile State of Bihar in section 17 of the Act 1894, the provisions of Section 17(1) can only be invoked in respect of a land which is "waste or arable". Though as per the records of right, the land in question is waste land, yet the said records of right would not be the sole criteria for determining whether the land is waste or arable, rather the Government should have considered the present nature and condition of the land. Since in the instant case, the land in question falls within the boundary wall of the school and is being used by it, the same cannot be treated as waste or arable land. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to object under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 is a valuation right and Section 17 is an exception to the general rule, hence the same can be invoked only when the proposed acquisition relates to a public purpose which cannot brook any delay on account of the objections. Administrative laxity or lethargy cannot be a ground for invoking the urgency clause. It is further submitted that the power under Section 17 of the Act, 1894 can be exercised only when the State Government is satisfied on the basis of materials before it that an occasion has arisen for invoking the urgency provision coupled with further satisfaction that the right to file objections should also be made inapplicable and such satisfaction cannot be perverse, arbitrary and unreasonable.;