IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.240 of 2010 1. VIJAY RANJAN SINGH, SON OF LATE MATHURA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. CHAMANPUR, POLICE STATKL & DISTRICT - SHEOHAR, BIHAR SECRETARY RAJENDRA GOKUL GOSALA BIHTA, AT PRESENT SADAQUAT ASHRAM, POLICE STATION PATILIPUTRA, PATNA-10. 2. RAM BINAY SHARMA, SON OF LATE RAM CHARITAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. MAHMATPUR, POLICE STATION BIKRAM, DISTRICT-PATNA, BIHAR. . . . . . . PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, AT & P.S. SECRETARIAT, PATNA, BIHAR 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, STATE OF BIHAR, AT SECRETARIAT, P.O. & POLICE STATION SECRETARIAT, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AT SECRETARIAT, P.O. & POLICE STATION SECRETARIAT, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. M.D. BIHAR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT UDYOG BHAWAN IST. FLOOR, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, POLICE STATION GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 6. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT, P.O. & P.S. SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 7. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AT 6TH FLOOR LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, POLICE STATION & P.O. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 8. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 9. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DANAPUR, EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN, RAJENDRA GOKUL GOSHALA BIHTA, DILWARPUR, POLICE STATION DANAPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 10. CHAIRMAN- CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 17, JAMSHEDPUR, TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS. For the Appellants : M/s S.R.C. Pandey, Amit Anand, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Keshari, AAG-XI, : Mr. Brajesh Kumar AC to AAG XI For Respondent no.5 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate : Mrs. B. Singh, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 7 & 10 : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate. ----------- 5/ 29.03.2011 This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed by the 2 appellants against the order dated 05.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12687 of 2009, whereby the transfer of land in dispute in favour of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited by the Government has been upheld. 2. The appellant no.1 claims to be the Secretary of Rajendra Gokul Model Goshala, Bihta, Patna, at present residing at Sadaquat Ashram, Patna and appellant no.2 is a member of Rajendra Gokul Goshala, Bihta, Patna. The appellants state that Rajendra Gokul Goshala, Bihta was established in the year 1947 under the patronage of late President Rajendra Prasad. The organization worked for rearing of cows, maintenance of cattles, supply of milk etc. In 1950, a large chunk of land measuring 130 Bighas and 4 Kathas were acquired in Bihta, Dilawarpur and near around Sadaquat Asram, Kurji in the township of Patna for construction of Rajendra Gokul Model Goshala. The total area so acquired was roughly around 130 Bighas, 4 Kathas. 3. The appellants have referred to certain documents including notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 9 under the Land Acquisition Act to show that there has been valid acquisition in its favour. The appellants state that the acquired land was handed over to them and mutation orders are also in their favour. 4. That by letter no. 7387 dated 11.12.2008 Director, Technical Development Department, Industries wrote to Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry Department, Patna to transfer 36.36 acres of land of Bihta bearing thana no.47 and 14.16 acres of land at Dilawarpur bearing thana no. 45 for the purpose of allotment to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 3 Limited. The appellants submit that Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur – cum - Chairman Rajendra Gokul Goshala, Bihta on 28.01.2008 illegally took a resolution accepting the request to allot the land to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar on 21.02.2009 approved allotment of 36.36 acres of land at Mauza Dilawarpur to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The appellants have assailed the decision of Animal Husbandry Department to transfer the land to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, as the land, which has already been transferred in their favour cannot be retransferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited without adopting due procedure of law. The appellants submit that after acquiring due procedure of law under Land Acquisition Act, the land has been transferred to them. 5. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General No.1, submits that from notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is amply clear that the land has acquired for construction of Rajendra Gokul Goshala. The land was never transferred to Rajendra Gokul Goshala, as such they would have no vested right to it. The Government had acquired the land for constructing Goshala and on finding that some of the land has remained unutilized, decided to allot the same to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The notification and declarations under Section 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 4 which are annexed as Annexures-1 and 1/A to the appeal, do show that the land was acquired for construction of Rajendra Gokul Goshala. In spite of repeated query and opportunity, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out to any document to show that the lands were ever transferred and has consequently so vested in Goshala. It is the own case of the appellants that it has not been able to utilize all the land, which was acquired for construction of Rajendra Gokul Goshala. The appellants in paragraph 3 of the memo of appeal admits that the Goshala has been able to utilize only 88 Bighas, 11 Kathas of land in Bihta, Dilawarpur and 10 Bighas, 4 Kathas and 12 dhurs of land near Kurji, Patna. The Government has also transferred the land to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in public interest. 7. In view of the above, we do not find that the appellants have made out any case for interfering with the impugned order dismissing the writ application preferred against of allotment of land in question to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but without cost. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)