IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2398 of 2007 DIWAKAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Rajni Kant Mishra For the respondents : J.C. to AAG-III ---- 6 24.6.2008 The lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for Mega Industrial Park to be established and as such a notification was issued in terms of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This notification was notified in the gazette on 29th November, 2006 and published in the news paper on 12.12.2006. In the said notification it is further stated that the lands were to be acquired urgently and as such a declaration was made in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act. Petitioners’ claim is that they are agriculturists and these are the fertile lands and are only source of livelihood. They would be rendered completely homeless, jobless and without any means of survival and payment of mere minor compensation would not solve their social problems of long term survival of family. They have thus challenged the proceeding. They have also challenged that the urgency as shown is malafide in law and in fact inasmuch as even though the notification was issued in the end of the year 2006 till date i.e. middle of the year 2008 neither any compensation whatsoever has been offered nor possession taken. If urgency was bonafide then immediately possession should have been taken and compensation offered but as admitted in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit no effort has been made to take possession till date and no reason for the same is assigned. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consents this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. In my view, when extra ordinary power even under the principle of eminent domain is given to the State to acquire the land compulsorily under emergent proceeding, then the urgency must be bonafide and genuine . Valuable rights of parties to object in terms of Section 5A of the Act are over ridden in emergent proceeding. The Scheme of the Act contemplates that no sooner notifications are issued parties are to be deprived of their possession of the land and the land will vest in the State immediately on possession being taken. Law, therefore, contemplates that immediately 80% of compensation has to be tendered. The object of acquisition may be noble or for a public cause but that will not permit the State to act contrary to the legislative intent. The manner in which the State has proceeded clearly indicates that there was no real urgency in the matter. The lands were notified in November/December,2006 for urgent acquisition but the fact remains that after the notification was issued in terms of Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act nothing further has been done. Neither any compensation offered to the petitioners nor possession taken till date. This, in my view, completely belies the plea of urgency. Thus, in my view, acquisition is malafide in law and cannot be permitted to continue. In my view, the notification is valid in so far as it as it declares urgency in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act as in fact no urgency is being shown by the State in the matter. The result would be that the declaration of urgency having been found to be malafide in law, the 3 notification in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act is bad and is quashed. This would automatically lead to lapsing of the notification in terms of Section 4 as the notification is composite notification to do away with the procedure of acquisition under ordinary process . Thus, in the result, the entire proceeding would stand vitiated as a matter of law. The notification of acquisition thus stands quashed as a whole. The State would be , however, at liberty to take such steps that are available to it in accordance with law. The writ application thus stands allowed. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)