IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18459 of 2008 1. SATYA NARAYAN @ SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD. 2. Sri Naraian. 3. Muneshwar Narayan. 4. Kushmenshwar Narayan. 5. Bankteshwar Narayan. All sons of Late Hari Bansh Narayan, Resident of Station Road, Jamal Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna :---- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Land Acquisition, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Patna. 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna. 6. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan (Nirman Bhawan), Baily Road, Patna. 7. The Managing Director, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited, Patna. 8. The Senior Project Engineer Works Division No. 1, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited, Patna :--- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.-3 & Mr. Ravindra Priyadarshi, A.C. to A.A.G.-3. For Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 :- Mr. Nadim Seraj, Advocate. ====== 3. 10.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the counsel for the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited, Patna. 2. Petitioners are the owners of the house property in Jamal Road, Patna situate over Plot No. 293, measuring an area of 0.0196 acre of land which became subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 15/2007-08 as the State decided to acquire the same by initiating emergency proceedings in terms of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). As per the mandate of Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the Act the State respondents having issued Section 4 notification and Section 6 declaration proceeded to calculate the value of the acquired property and - 2 - thereafter issued notice dated 03.12.2007 under Section 9 of the Act calling the petitioners to accept 80 per cent of the compensation amount. From the report of the Process Server recorded on the reverse of the notice it appears that attempt of the authorities to serve the said notice on the petitioners could not succeed and ultimately the notice was fixed on the door of the house of the petitioners by the Process Server on 08.01.2008. Such fact is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. In support of those statements learned counsel for the State has produced photo copy of the notice along with a cheque of Rs. 11,12,344.01/-dated 08.12.2009 for payment to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners on instructions refused to accept the cheque as according to him the authorities never made any attempt to serve the notice on the petitioners and a false statement has been recorded on the reverse of the notice and such fact has been stated in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel further submitted that the endorsement of the Process Server on the reverse of the notice that the petitioners refused to accept the notice should not be accepted as conclusive proof of the fact that the petitioners refused to accept the notice. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sushila Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, reporter in AIR 1963 Patna 469. 3. Notice in terms of Section 17 of the Act is to be served on the land-holder for payment of compensation and even in this Court the attempt of the authorities to serve the - 3 - notice and the cheque on the petitioners and their counsel has not succeeded. In the circumstances, I am inclined to accept the submission that attempt of the State to serve the notice on the petitioners was frustrated because of non co- operation of the petitioners themselves. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further assailed the proceedings taken for acquisition of their house property by indicating in the notice under Section 4 that the land is waste and arable and thereby acquisition was made misleading the authorities that the land is waste and arable although it is situate in the heart of Patna Town at the T Junction of Jamal Road and Station Road. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in terms of the relevant provisions administrative sanction for the project ought to have been taken before taking steps for acquisition of the land but till date administrative sanction for such project has not been taken and on this score also the acquisition is bad. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that till date possession has not been taken and without taking possession the statement in paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit that scheme has been completed is wholly misleading and incorrect. 5. Besides the aforesaid aspect learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that amendment made in the Act in 1984 which empowered the State authorities to take emergency proceedings in regard to any land is not applicable to the State in view of the provisions of the Bihar Amendment of 1961 made in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. - 4 - 6. Aforesaid submissions have been refuted by the counsel for the State with reference to proviso to Sub-Clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India as according to him no sooner 1984 amendment was made in the Act the same became applicable to the State as well as any provision contrary to such provision made under the Bihar Amendment Act 11 of 1961 became repugnant to 1984 amendment and thus stood impliedly repealed. 7. From perusal of the notice dated 03.12.2007 it is evident that having assessed the compensation amount for the property of the petitioners situate in Plot No. 293 of Jamal Road the State authorities have proceeded to pay them 80 percent of the compensation amount amounting to Rs. 12,40,071.10/- under notice dated 03.12.2007 which the petitioners refused to accept and thereafter the cheque has been prepared and produced in this Court but learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction from petitioners has refused to accept the same. 8. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that points raised in this application were also considered in the case of Bishnu Deo Narayan whose property was also acquired in connection with the same Land Acquisition Case bearing number 15/2007-08 and was rejected under orders dated 27th August, 2008 against which L.P.A.No. 746 of 2008 was filed which was also dismissed under judgment dated 6th November, 2009 against which matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 29694 of 2009 and the - 5 - prayer to stay the further proceedings in the land acquisition case has been refused while issuing notice in the matter as notice is only restricted to the question whether the date for the purpose of determination of compensation be postponed from 23.08.2007 to a later date and in appreciation of such order this Court should vacate the interim order which has been granted on 08.12.2009. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the lands are being acquired for the purpose of completing the over-bridge in the heart of Patna town so as to relieve the people of the traffic congestion, as such, the public interest of the acquisition cannot be disputed and in the circumstances I not only vacate the stay order dated 08.12.2009 but also dismiss the writ application. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)