IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.626 of 2010 SHAMBHU MEHTHA S/O LATE MANGAL MEHTA R/O VILL.+P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN. … Petitioner… Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GANDAK PROJECT, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GANDAK PROJECT, MOTIHARI. 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GANDAK PROJECT, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 6. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI . … Respondents… Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Shiv Prakash Shrivastava, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv. ---------- 2. 05.04.2010 I. A. No. 3197 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 50 days in preferring the appeal. Heard Mr. Shiv Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the State. Regard being had to the averments made in the petition, delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I. A. No. 3197 of 2010 stands disposed of. 2 L. P. A. No. 626 of 2010. As we have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, we are inclined to take the appeal for final disposal at the motion stage. Questioning the legal propriety of the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 16737 of 2009 the present appeal has been filed. The factual matrix as uncurtained has its own peculiarity. A small patch of land was acquired by the State Government and compensation was paid to Mangal Mehta, the father of the appellant. The amount that was paid is Rs.3560/-. Though the State had already acquired the land, yet a further notification was issued for acquisition of same land for the purpose of construction of a canal. Later on, the purpose was changed and in stead of a canal, an approach road was constructed to connect with the railway over bridge. At that juncture, the appellant was granted compensation amounting to Rs.3560.40/-. It is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that he has no knowledge that his father had accepted money and 3 there was a previous land acquisition proceeding. It is further urged by him that the appellant had preferred the writ petition to return the amount. Learned single Judge, as is seen from the impugned order, has not adverted to the said aspect. On a query being made from Mr. P. K. Shahi, it is urged by him that by mistake the land was acquired twice and as long time has elapsed and a small amount is involved keeping in view the honesty of the appellant he need not return the amount. Be it noted, no criminal action has been initiated against the appellant. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is disposed of. Kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)