CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6381 OF 1989 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. VIDYA NAND YADAV, SON OF LATE GOVIND YADAV 2. SAFAI YADAV, SON OF LATE GIVIND YADAV 3. VIVEKA YADAV @ VIVEKA KUMAR, SON OF VIDYANAND YADAV 4(a) MOST. SUDAMA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SITA RAM YADAV 4(b) BIJOY YADAV 4(c) BIPIN YADAV, BOTH SONS OF SITA RAM YADAV 4(d) RUBI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SITA RAM YADAV 5. RAJARAM YADAV, SON OF LATE LADOO YADAV 6. RABINDRA YADAV, SON OF LATE LADOO YADAV 7. BIJOY YADAV, SON OF SITARAM YADAV 8. GHOGHAI YADAV, SON OF LATE DOMAN YADAV 9. NITYANAND YADAV, SON OF GHOGHAI YADAV 10.RAM RATAN YADAV, SON OF GHOGHAI YADAV 11.HARERAM YADAV, SON OF GHOGHAI YADAV 12.LALO YADAV, SON OF LATE DOMAN YADAV 13.SHUBHANKAR YADAV, SON OF LADU YADAV 14.BAHORE YADAV @ BAHOR YADAV, SON OF RAGHU NANDAN YADAV 15.NAND KISHORE YADAV @ NAN KISHORE YADAV, SON OF RAGHUNANDAN YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AHOKE GHAT KIRITI, KIRITI TOLA, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, P.O. AHOKE BISHANPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ------------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (COLLECTOR) OF BEGUSARAI 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 4. DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BEGUSARAI 5. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, INCHARGE, LEGAL SECTION, BEGUSARAI 6. S.D.O., BEGUSARAI. ------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner : UPENDRA PD SINHA For The Respondent : A.A.G. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. The petitioners have challenged the order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1989-90 maintained by the District Land 2 Acquisition Officer, Begusarai contained in annexure- 2. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 17.6.1989 by which their objection that the lands are not required for the purpose for which they have been notified has been rejected. In the said order it has also been mentioned that the acquisition was made under Section 25 of the Bengal Embankment Act, 1982 and that the delivery of possession has also been taken over by the State. In the mean time, the petitioners filed this writ application and the same was admitted on 26.8.1989. While admitting the writ application this Court ordered as follows: “In the mean time, further proceeding, initiated under Bengal Embankment Act, 1982, shall remain stayed. However, we want to make it clear that we have not stayed the proceeding, if any, initiated under the Land Acquisition Act”. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in fact the State counsel has put up his hands showing helplessness as the file is not available to him. It appears by order dated 27.11.2007 the 3 J.C. to A.A.G. III was to seek instructions in this matter. However, three years have lapsed but no affidavit has been filed as yet. The fact of the matter remains that this Court had ordered that the Land Acquisition Proceeding should continue. The court has no way of knowing whether any Land Acquisition Proceeding has been initiated as yet or not, or whether further action has been taken under the Bengal Embankment Act, 1982. Counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to make any positive statement regarding this aspect. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands were acquired under Section 25 which is an emergency provision for acquisition but the Court is unaware of the further development in this case. 4. I thus remand this matter to the Collector who will consider all aspects of the matter and enquire into the facts as to whether the lands are required for acquisition considering that there has been considerable delay in the matter. The State ought to have filed an application or made some effort to get the matter heard, if they actually required the 4 lands for settlement of person, who were displaced due to the construction of the embankment. I, therefore, quash annexure- 2 and remand the matter for fresh consideration. This order is always subject to the fact that the acquisition proceedings are not completed, and subject to the fact that delivery of possession has not been taken over by the State and handed over to the displaced person. The petitioners may appear before the Collector with a copy of this order within a period of one month, and on receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Collector should examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. 5. This writ application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Patna High Court, The 29th of July, 2010 N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)