w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ramanandi Devi Hindu Anathalaya v/s State of Bihar

    C.W.J.C. 3177 Of 1984

    Decided On, 06 October 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARAYAN ROY

    For the Appearing Parties: B.K. Shukla, Anurag K. Shukla, Lalit Kishore, Harishankar Roy, Advocates.



Judgment Text

NARAYAN ROY, J.

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this application, the petitioner challenges the entire land acquisition proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 1980-81.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially the notificati

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") is said to have been issued, but not in the manner prescribed in law. It is further submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not displayed at convenient places in the said locality and the petitioner had no knowledge of the same. It is also submitted that after issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 1-7-1980 a corrigendum was issued by the Collector dated 4-6-1981 making certain corrections in the date of the said notification and also of the boundary of the land, but no notification afresh was issued in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act, and, therefore, on this ground alone, the entire proceeding vitiates. At the same time, learned Counsel also submitted that the corrigendum, as contained in Annexure 2, and that of the declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act are one and the same and it appears that simultaneously, the corrigendum and declaration were issued on 4-6-1981.

(4.) Since the proceeding is being challenged on the grounds, as referred to above, in my opinion, I need not go in detail unless I find materials contrary to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(5.) Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it is nowhere explained as to whether after issuance of the corrigendum dated 4-6-1981, the date of the notification and boundary of the land were sought to be corrected, a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued nor there is any explanation as to under what circumstances the declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 4-6-1981 on the date when the corrigendum was issued, as contained in Annexure 2.

(6.) After issuance of the corrigendum, as contained in Annexure 2, it appears that the description of the land had changed in view of certain corrections sought for in the boundary, and, therefore, necessarily, a fresh publication was required to be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and since no such notification was issued after Annexure 2 dated 4-6-1981, the whole proceeding vitiates.

(7.) It is informed at the bar that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court dated 13-7-1984 they are not in a position to convey as to whether the delivery of possession has been affected or not.

(8.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons, aforementioned, this application is allowed and the entire acquisition proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 1980-81 is hereby quashed. However, the respondents may be at liberty, if so advised, to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs
OR

Already A Member?

Also