BAN BIHARI MAHATO AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceeding in L.A. Case No. 9 of 1964 -65 including the award said to have been made on 30.10.1986 by the respondent No. 4 are ultravires and without jurisdiction in view of the express provisions of Sec. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act 1984) (the Act) and for quashing the notice purported to have been issued under Sec. 12 of the Act after the award was published. A notification (annexure 2) under Sec. 4 of the Act for acquisition of land including those of petitioners for public purpose at village Dindli in Singhbhum district was issued on or about 30.3.1964. A declaration (annexure 3) under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 21.4.1964. No further step was taken by the respondents. The validity of the notification was challenged by the petitioners and others by filing application at Patna under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the same was registered as M.J.C. No. 1073 of 1964. The land acquisition proceeding was not stayed. That case was dismissed on 14.5.1965. The petitioners and others after obtaining certificate of fitness, filed in Supreme Court Civil Appeal Nos. 2286 and 2287 of 1970. The Supreme Court did not pass any order staying the land acquisition proceeding. Meanwhile the Act was amended in 1984 and the amendment came into force on 24.9.1984. The relevant Sec. in this case is Sec. 11A which was introduced by the amending Act of 1984. The two Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25.2.1986, copy of the order is annexure 4 to this writ petition. There is no dispute with regard to these facts.

(2.) According to the petitioners since the proceeding was not completed and the award was declared within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Act, the entire proceeding lapsed by reasons of the operation of the law. Respondent No. 4, however, without service of notice under Sec. 9 and without making any enquiry, on 30.10.1986 purported to declare an award, which having been done after the proceeding had lapsed was of no effect. Respondent no. 4 thereafter by notices, sample copy of which is annexure 5 to this writ petition, offered to pay the amount as awarded. The petitioners did not accept it. Possession of the land was not taken by the respondents.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 filed counter affidavit. Inter alia, it was stated in the counter affidavit that notices under Sec. 9 of the Act were issued to the persons having interest in the land under acquisition. No action in the proceeding was taken as the matter was pending in the High Court and thereafter in toe Supreme Court. The delay in completing the proceeding was, therefore, made by the petitioners by moving High Court and Supreme Court. Immediately after having learnt in February, 1986 about the dismissal of Civil Appeals by the Supreme Court, steps were taken to publish the award which was valid in the eyes of law. He has not denied that the petitioners did not accept the award. There is no assertion that possession of the land of the petitioners had been taken.