IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.412 of 2010 1. KUNDAN KUMAR S/O SRIKANT PRASAD SHARMA R/O VILL.- DHIBAR, P.S. PANDARAK, DISTT.- PATNA ….. Appellant…. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PATNA 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 5. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (N.T.P.C.), BARH THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.S. BARH, DISTT.- PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EASTERN ZONE (N.T.P.C.), JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 7. THE GENERAL MANAGER (NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION) N.T.P.C., BARH, PATNA 8. SRI K.N. JHA S/O LATE J.N. JHA MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES, N.T.P.S., BARH, PATNA 9. SRI KANT PRASAD SHARMA S/O LATE AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- DHIBAR, P.S. PANDARAK, DISTT.- PATNA ….. Respondents… Respondents with C. REV. No.9 of 2010 1. KUNDAN KUMAR S/O SRI KANT PRASAD SHARMA R/O VILL- DHIBAR, P.S. PANDARAK, DISTT. PATNA ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PATNA 5. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (N.T.P.C.), BARH THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.S. BARH, DISTT. PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EASTERN ZONE (N.T.P.C.), JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 7. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (N.T.P.C.), BARH, PATNA 8. SRI K.N. JHA S/O LATE J.N. JHA MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCE, N.T.P.C., BARH, PATNA 9. SRI KANT PRASAD SHARMA, S/O LATE AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL- DHIBAR, P.S. PANDARAK, DISTT. PATNA ….. Respondents ----------- 06 20.04.2010 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent N.T.P.C. and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. A preliminary objection has been raised on 2 behalf of respondent N.T.P.C. to the maintainability of Civil Review No. 9 of 2010. It appears that C.W.J.C. No. 13973 of 2005 was preferred by the father of the appellant questioning the acquisition of the lands which came to be dismissed on 27.2.2007, against which his father preferred L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007 which also came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant justifying the maintainability of the review application submits that he was a minor at the time that the writ petition and the L.P.A. came to be dismissed. He acknowledges that his father is alive and has not preferred any further appeal or Review application against the order in L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007. It is urged that his father acted mala fide not in his best interest as a minor and therefore he has a right to question the same on attaining majority. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties with regard to maintainability of Civil Review No. 9 of 2010, we are satisfied that the Civil Review application is not bona fide and hence not maintainable. The very fact that his father questioned the acquisition proceedings makes it manifest that he acted in the 3 best interest of his minor son. The order passed by the Writ Court and the Appellate Court earlier have attained finality. If the petitioner contends that he had a stake in the lands as a minor and his father did not act in his best interest, the petitioner has already preferred C.W.J.C. No. 8983 of 2008 against the same. We have gone through the pleadings in the Review application. There is not an iota of pleading with regard to any mala fide action of his father and in what manner he did not act in the best interest of the petitioner as a minor. There is no merit in the Review Application. It is dismissed. Land acquisition proceedings were conducted for purposes of laying of a water pipeline required for the cooling plant of the Super Thermal Power Station being constructed, by the respondent Corporation at Barh. The father of the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 13973 of 2005 questioning the acquisition of his lands for the water pipeline, contending that his lands were never the original route approved for the pipeline. Changes have been made in the route by local Officers wrongly. The Corporation took the stand that the route had been designed by its head 4 office at New Delhi, considering the ecological feasibility and economic cost. This Court dismissed the writ application on 27.2.2007 holding that the matter involved technical aspects for which the respondent corporation itself was the best judge. The Court could not usurp jurisdiction of the technical authorities and sit an appeal over technical decisions. The judgment was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007 which was also dismissed on 12.4.2007. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time that the writ petition and the L.P.A. were dismissed, the statutory notification under Sections 4 and 6 had not been issued. Therefore, the fresh writ petition was based on a fresh cause of action. It was submitted that the acquisition was for a company. It could not be said that there was any public purpose involved in laying the water pipeline over his lands by changing the route without proper approval, since now the Corporation had conceded that the changed route had not been approved by the Corporate Office. It was next contended that the acquisition was mala fide in law by abuse of powers by the Officers of the Corporation at the local level. An earlier plan did 5 not show the requirements of the present land. The route of the water pipeline had been changed to favour one Narendra Kumar Singh @ Bogo Singh. The order under appeal finds favour with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, but nonetheless declines to interfere in the matter by exercise of appropriate jurisdiction leaving the appellant to the remedy of a Review of L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007. Learned counsel for the Corporation urged that the proceedings initiated by the present appellant are not bona fide and are barred by principles of res judicata. This Court in the earlier litigation has already noticed that the matter involved technical aspects. There was delegation of powers by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the General Manager at the local level for purposes of exercise of appropriate jurisdiction to execute decisions on behalf of Corporation which was a functional necessity. The change in the route map of the water pipeline was based on a fresh topographical and hydrological survey conducted by M/s Superintending Company of India Limited. This had been also approved by the Technical Executive Wing of the respondent Corporation both at Barh 6 and the Corporate Office. No challenge has been laid out in the writ petition to any infirmity in the land acquisition notification with regard to statutory provisions Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition is stated to have been done under the emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court has already noticed earlier that laying of the water pipeline was a technical aspect which the Court was not competent to examine. This Court upholds the submission of the respondent corporation that the change of the route was necessitated based on technical reports duly approved by the authorities of the corporation, whether it be at the local level or at the corporate level. The question of estoppel with regard to the route does not arise. The allegation of mala fide at the behest of the local officers in changing the route of the water pipeline cannot amount to mala fides in law, if the local Officers made these changes based on technical expert reports. The appellant made a feeble attempt to urge that it was done to favour of one Narendra 7 Kumar Singh @ Bogo Singh. Once we have held that the proper route for the water pipeline are technical matters which the Court is not competent to interfere with and the petitioner has chosen but not to place any further material on record in support of his allegations that it was done to favour another and leaves it as a bald and vague proposition, this Court finds it difficult to consider that plea. This Court for the entirety finds no reason to allow the appeal by holding the acquisition of the lands of the petitioner to be bad. The direction contained in the last paragraph of the order under appeal granting liberty to seek review of L.P.A. No. 288 of 2007 is best answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2009 (5) SCC 634 (CENTURY TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS DEEPAK JAIN AND ANOTHER), paragraph-23 holding as follows:- “We are also constrained to observe that while dealing with the second revision petition, the High Court failed to take into consideration the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 21.8.2002 whereby the executing court was directed to conduct inquiry in regard to the status of the objector to the execution proceedings. Time and again it has been emphasized that judicial propriety and decorum requires that if a Single Judge, hearing a matter, feels that earlier 8 decision of a Single Judge needs reconsideration, he should not embark upon that enquiry, sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a larger Bench. Regrettably, in the present case, the learned single judge departed from the said healthy principle and chose to re-examine the same question himself.” The appeal is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)