IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14540 of 2011 Satyendra Prasad S/O Sri Raj Kishore Prasad R/O Vill.- Dasrathpur P.S. Giriak P.O. Pawapuri, Distt.-Nalanda. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through The Deputy Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Biharshariff, Distt. Nalanda. 3. The Additional Collector, Biharshariff, Nalanda. 4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Biharshariff, Nalanda. 5. The S.D.O., Rajgir, Distt.-Nalanda. 6. The Circle Officer, Giriak Block P.S. Giriak Distt.- Nalanda. …… Respondents ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16242 of 2011 1. Anjani Kumar S/O Late Jagdish Prasad Resident of Village-Dashrathpur, P.O. Pawapuri, P.S. Giriak, District- Nalanda. 2. Krishna Murari S/O Late Nand Kishore Prasad Resident of Village-Dashrathpur, P.O. Pawapuri, P.S. Giriak, District-Nalanda. ……Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 5. The Additional Collector, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda. 8. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rajgir, Nalanda. 9. The Circle Officer, Giriak, Nalanda. …… Respondents 2 For the Petitioner : M/s Kamla Pd. Roy, (in CWJC No. 14540/11) Satya Ranjan Singh & Seema Kumari, Advocates For the Petitioner (in CWJC No. 16242/2011) For the State : M/s Ram Balak Mahto, Advocate General (in both cases) Ajeet Kumar and Krishna Chandra A.Cs. to A.G. 6 01.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the State. In both the writ applications the petitioners seek quashing of the notification as contained in Annexure 1 made under Section 74 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), so far it concerns their plots, with further relief to release the plots from acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14540 of 2011 submits that an area of 27 ½ decimals of land of his plot no. 725 has been notified to be acquired for the purpose of 120 feet broad approach road for connecting the Vardhaman Institute of Medical Science & Hospital, Pawapuri with a pre-exiting public road. It is contended that the petitioner is having a residential house upon the land and, therefore, the alignment of the road should be 3 diverted to spare his residential house. Learned counsel further submitted that there is already a gate of the proposed hospital in the western side just adjacent to a public road, therefore, another approach road is not at all needed. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 16242 of 2011 also follows almost the same line and submits that there is no requirement of 120 feet wide road to connect the institution with merely 40 feet wide road. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State. Learned Advocate General submits that a huge construction of a Medical College and Hospital is in the offing for the benefit of the people of the State at large. A road is being constructed for connecting such Medical College and Hospital from a public road which ultimately joins the National Highway. So far the western part of the boundary of the proposed Medical College and Hospital is concerned, it is contended that between the public road and the boundary of the Medical College and 4 Hospital, there are certain plots which belong to Jalmandir Trust and other persons. There is also a proposal to acquire those plots for access to that road also. It is further contended that, since it is a huge construction of a Medial College and Hospital and other related buildings, one approach road would not be sufficient and practical. Thus, there is a proposal for having more than one gate and more than one approach roads. It is also urged that even for the proposed construction also the approach road would be necessary for bringing the building materials etc. and, thus, the present acquisition was necessary. Therefore, the lands have been acquired under emergency provision so that easy and immediate access from the public road is provided to the construction side. On the point of taking alternative alignment for the proposed road learned Advocate General places reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K. Balaji Jaya Rama Rao & ors. reported in (2007) 15 SCC 791. The Apex Court has observed in paragraph 19 of the aforesaid decision if 5 it is admitted that the acquisition is for public purpose in that case it would be for the Government to decide which piece or parcel of the properties is to be acquired for the said public purpose. It would not be open to an owner to say that some other property is more suitable. Because if that were to be permitted then every owner will say that some other property is better and others property must be acquired for the said purpose instead of his own. On earlier occasion opportunity was given to the petitioners also to file their sketch map. A sketch map has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 16242/2011. In that sketch map it has been shown that there is already a gate of Medical College on western side opening up in a public road. In this regard, as stated above, a stand has been taken by the State that the same is not the main gate and between that gate and public road there is patch of land belonging to the Jalmandir Trust and other persons. Thus, in the present form that would not serve the purpose. However, there is also a proposal to acquire those pieces of land so that in future that access would 6 also be available for the Medical College and Hospital. In view of the stand taken by the State, that such a big institution cannot have only one gate and one approach road and another approach road is also required, I do not find any merit in the averments made in this regard on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Devendra Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011(4) BLJ 38 to impress upon this Court that each and every acquisition for public purpose should not take recourse of Section 17(4) of the Act as every acquisition for public purpose cannot be under emergency provision. However, learned Advocate General points out that in that case their Lordships have made certain observation in view of the fact that for certain public purpose such as development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas, by their intrinsic nature and character contemplates planning, execution and 7 implementation of schemes which generally takes few years. Therefore, acquisition for such purpose does not justify invoking of emergency provision under the Act. However, in the present case it is submitted that the construction work is already going on for the Medical College and Hospital and the acquisition is not for that purpose rather that is for construction of approach road for connecting the construction site from a public road so that there would be hassle free access for providing building materials etc. and other works relating to construction and subsequently for its utilization by the Medical College and Hospital after completion of the construction. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners could not make out a case that acquisition of the concerned land under emergency provision was not justified at all. It is further noticed that the proposed construction of the road involves more than fifteen plots, however, only the petitioners of both these writ applications having one plot each, have come to raise their grievance. In above view of the matter, interference of this Court is not warranted in these 8 cases. Accordingly, these writ applications are dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)