IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10275 of 2004 Ghulam Rasul, Son of Late Nabi Hasan, Resident of Village and Post Office- Mirza Nagar, Police Station Mahua, District Vaishali. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Land Acquisiiton, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Collector, District Vaishali at Hazipur. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at Hazipur. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mahua, District Vaishali. 6. Abdul Wahab, Son of Late Nabbu Mian, Residnet of Village and Post Office- Mirza Nagar, Police Station Mahua, District Vaishali. ------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choube, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, G.P.-III For the Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate -------------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA O R D E R (13.10.2009) Mihir Kr. Jha, J. Heard Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choube, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Prasad Verma, counsel for the State as also Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, counsel for the private respondent no.6. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed, inter alia, for quashing the Notification No.54 L.A. Vaishali dated 3.3.2003 published in the daily Hindi 2 Newspaper „Hindustan‟ on 15.3.2003, the subsequent order of the Collector, district Vaishali who has passed the order dated 5.7.2004 on objection being preferred by the petitioner bearing Misc. Case No. 121/2003-2004 and for quashing the Notice singed on 9.7.2004 under section 9 of the Act which has been prescribed procedures and for such other relief or reliefs, order or orders, direction or directions as will be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choube, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very plain and simple issue that the description and the ground mentioned now under the notification of the said acquisition being made for public purpose prima-facie appears to be only a camouflage, inasmuch as, the entire acquisition is sought to be made for benefit of the respondent no.6, who has a house on a land-locked portion having no connection with the approach road and the main road. In this context, he has also relied on categorical statement of the petitioner not only in this writ application but also before the Collector of the district in the application by way of objection filed by the petitioner under 3 Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel also refers to the findings of the Collector of the district in the impugned order wherein it has been held that the land in question is being acquired for providing an approach road to the respondent no.6 and Md. Feeroz, Zahar Auhal, Abdul Wahab and Md. Kamal. It is the case of the petitioner that all the aforementioned persons are not only from one family but also in fact are sons of the respondent no.6. 4. Counsel for the State in this context has referred to the statement made in paragraph no.6 to 10 of the counter affidavit but then he could also not dislodge the fact as admitted by the deponent in the counter affidavit of the State that such acquisition was undertaken only for a limited number of persons, namely, Md. Feeroz, Zahar Auhal, Abdul Wahab and Md. Kamal. Counsel for the State has however proceeded to make a submission that from the report of the Anchal Adhikari, it would be clear that such acquisition of land was made for the benefit of the general villagers and not only for the aforesaid five named persons. 4 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6, who has not filed any counter affidavit till date, would submit that the respondent no.6 is separate in mess and business from his sons and his sons, for getting their house connected by a link road on the acquired land cannot be treated to be an individual so as to merge their identity and interest with the respondent no.6. 6. In the opinion of this court two things are very clear. The power to acquire land of any person, a raiyat, in terms of Section 4 of the Act is definitely vested in the State Government/Collector of the district but then such acquisition has to be made for serving only a "public purpose" as defined in Section 3(f) of the Act. Construction of road by itself as mentioned under Section 4 notification would definitely amount to be a public purpose but then the impugned Section 4 notification itself says that land was being acquired for a link road (Sampark Path). It is in this context that one has to go to para-8 of the counter affidavit which by itself would clinch the issue. Para-8 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- 5 “8. That it is stated that the villagers namely, Md. Feeroz, Zahar Auhal, Abdul Wahab and Md. Kamal had got no way to reach on the road which situates just towards north of R.S.P. No. 4535 as R.S.P. no. 4468 and this R.S.P. no. 4468 is main Road in village-Mirza Nagar which lies towards north of the respective houses of the persons named above and the said road is also connecting with other road of village in question, but the public in general named above have got no way to reach upon the orad but on acquisition of 1 1/4 Deci. land will fulfill the necessity of the general public. 7. From reading of the paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit as quoted above, it would be clear that this link road was going only to the house of the respondent no.6 and it is the house of the respondent no.6 which was sought to be connected with the main road and therefore, the purpose of this acquisition was primarily to serve personal interest of the respondent no.6, which in now event cannot be said to be in public interest or for public purpose, which has been defined u/s 3(f) of the Act in the following terms:- "the expression "public purpose" includes- (i) the provision of village sites, or the extension, 6 planned development or improvement of existing village sites; (ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning; (iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned; (iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Govt. or by any authority established by Govt. for 7 carrying out any such scheme or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or co-operative societies within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State; (vii)the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Govt. or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Govt. by a local authority; (viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for companies;" It is this aspect of the matter which would render the entire process of acquisition of the land of the petitioners, meant exclusively for serving the interest of the Respondent no. 6 and his sons, to be bad both on fact and in law. 8 8. It is true that the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Raja Ram reported in (1981) 2 S.C.C. 66 has held that the words "Public Purpose" are not to be interpreted in a restricted sense but from the exhaustive definition given under section 3(f) of the Act public purpose can also not become a substitute for a private purpose seeking to serve the interest of an individual. 9. This Court, therefore, keeping in view that the proceedings had remained stayed under the order of this Court dated 4.4.2005, would quash the entire land acquisition proceedings by giving only liberty to the State of Bihar and its officials to initiate a fresh proceeding if found necessary only if there would be a dominant public purpose for serving public interest by way of construction of public road which in no event would be not guided with the personal interest of the respondent no.6 and his sons. 10. That being so, this application is allowed and the impugned order as also notices are hereby quashed. Patna High Court Dated the 13th Oct, 2009 A.F.R./Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)