IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6047 of 2003 GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 9. 21.07.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are the landholders. They have filed this writ application for a direction to the State-respondents not to proceed and acquire lands in terms of the notification dated 13.8.2001, as contained in Annexure-2 to this writ application as land acquisition proceedings initiated for the same lands earlier were closed and petitioners were free to assume full control over the lands in-question as also to resist the acquisition in terms of notification dated 13.08.2001 in the light of the orders of this Court dated 25.09.2001 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3810 of 1995, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is further submitted that land acquisition proceedings taken pursuant to notification dated 13.8.2001 also could not be completed within two years of the publication of Section 4 notification dated 13.8.2001, as such, the proceeding has to be closed. 3. Counsel for the State with reference to the statement made in the counter affidavit has opposed the prayer. He submits that the possession of the lands of the petitioners were taken on 31.3.1989 pursuant to Sections 4,6 and 17(4) notification issued on 18.11.1987 which was published in the District Gazette on 24.11.1987 after the Government passed orders dated 8.1.1988 under Sub-Clause (i) of Section 17 directing the Collector to make payment of the 80 per cent compensation to the land holders and thereafter to take possession of the lands-in-question. Collector having arranged the required funds issued notice dated 15.2.1988 to the land holders including the petitioners asking them to accept 80 per cent of the compensation amount. Land-holders other than the petitioners accepted 80 per cent of the compensation amount. No sooner compensation paid/deposited and possession taken over by the Collector of the District on - 2 - 31.3.1989 the title in the subject matter of acquisition stood transferred in favour of the State. It is true that having issued notice dated 15.2.1988 for payment of 80 per cent compensation and thereafter having taken possession of the lands on 31.3.1989 the State should have published the final award within a reasonable time but on account of laches on the part of the authorities the final award has been made in the year 2008 whereafter notice dated 15.3.2008 for payment of the balance of 20 per cent compensation has been issued on 15.3.2008 as regards other land-holders who accepted 80 per cent compensation in response to notice dated 15.02.1988. So far petitioners are concerned since they did not receive 80 per cent compensation earlier in the years 1988 and 1989 they have been asked under notice dated 15.3.2008 to collect full compensation for their lands acquired in the proceeding. In this connection learned counsel for the State has pointed out that in the present case Section 11 (A) of the Act has no application as the present proceeding was initiated by resorting to the emergency provisions under Sub-Clause (4) of Section 17 of the Act. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 369 paragraphs 14 and 15 which has been subsequently followed by The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 105 (SC) as also by this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 359. 4. Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder has submitted that the notification initiating the proceeding under Section 4 as also declaration under Section 6 was issued on the same day which is impermissible in law and in support of such submission he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Radhey Shyam Nigam and others, reported in (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 591. 5. The submission that notification under Sections 4 and 6 - 3 - could not have been issued simultaneously should have been raised at the appropriate time and not belatedly after about 20 years of the issue of the notification/declaration dated 18.11.1987. Possession of the lands stood taken over by the State as far back on 31.3.1989, I am not inclined to consider the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings impugned in this case. The observation of this Court rendered in the order dated 25.09.2001, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3810 of 1995, Annexure-1 that petitioners are at liberty to deal with their lands is also not to be relied upon in these proceedings, as such, observations were made by this Court without noticing the fact that the land stood acquired under proceedings initiated on 18.11.1987 possession whereof was taken over on 31.3.1989 and as the observations/declaration were ignoramus of the record the petitioners cannot take any advantage thereof. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)