IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4052 of 2006 MAKESHWAR MAHTO & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwiwedi(Sr. Advocate), Dinesh Prasad Singh, Advoacate. For the Marketing Board : M/S B.K.Singh Chouhan, Binod Kumar Singh, Advocates. ----------- 9. 30.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Board, Patna(hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). 2. Petitioners are the land holders, whose lands were acquired in the year 1976 for raising a market yard under the provisions of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act. This writ application has been filed praying inter alia to direct the State to provide the petitioners lands/shop as the petitioners became landless after acquisition of their lands for raising the market yard in terms of the Government decision communicated to the Chairman of the Board as contained in Memo No. 10/76 dated 9.9.1976, Annexure-1. Neither the State authorities nor the authorities of the Board allowed land/shop to the petitioners, although several correspondences were exchanged between the authorities. Reference in this connection be made to the last two correspondences exchanged between the Collector, Lakhisarai and the Commissioner, Munger Division and the other between the Managing Director of the Board and the Collector, Lakhisarai bearing letter No. 257 dated 10.12.2004 and Memo No. 2349 dated 5.7.2005 as contained in Annexures- 8 and 9. However, when nothing happened in the light of Annexures-1, 8 and 9 then the petitioners were constrained to file this writ application for a direction to the State Government and the Board to settle lands with them as was resolved by the State Government and - 2 - communicated to the Chairman of the Board under letter dated 9.9.1976. 3. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Collector, Lakhisarai, Respondent No. 7 and with reference to the averments made therein has submitted that lands of the petitioners along with other lands were acquired for the purposes of raising the market yard but has disputed the claim of the petitioners that the Government had taken any decision to acquire the adjacent land for settlement with the petitioners. In the counter affidavit it is further disputed that after acquisition of the lands, petitioners have become landless. 4. Counsel for the Board with reference to the orders passed by this Court dated 12.4.2006 in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1996 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8, Special Officer of the Market Committee, Lakhisarai has submitted that the husband of petitioner No.3, Yogendra Singh had filed title suit relying on the instructions of the Government contained in Memo No. 10/76 dated 9.9.1976, Annexure-1, which suit was initially decreed but the judgment and decree passed in the suit was set aside in appeal and the appellate order was affirmed under the aforesaid orders dated 12.4.2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1996 recording a finding that there was no agreement between the said Yogendra Singh and the authorities of the State that he shall be provided with land in lieu of his land being acquired for raising the market yard. 5. Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submitted that the plea taken by the husband of the petitioner No.3, Yogendra Singh in the aforesaid title suit, was ultimately dismissed by this Court under orders dated 12.4.2006, Annexure-12 passed in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1996 recording a finding that there was no agreement between the said Yogendra - 3 - Singh and the authorities of the State for providing land in lieu of acquisition of land but the petitioners have come to this Court raising a grievance that it was the State itself under letter dated 9.9.1976 had asked the authorities of the Board to provide land/shop in lieu of acquisition of land, as such the Board should be directed by this Court to honour the decision of the Government reflected in letter dated 9.9.1976 in furtherance whereof steps were taken as is evident from letter dated 10.12.2004 and 5.7.2005, Annexures-8 and 9. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that as the title suit filed for enforcing the promise made under letter dated 9.9.1976, Annexure-1 has ultimately failed, this Court after passage of more than twenty years of the issue of letter dated 9.9.1976 should not interfere in the matter and accordingly, this writ application, which was filed during the pendency of the Second Appeal No. 209 of 1996 is dismissed. This order of mine should, however, not come in the way of the revenue authorities of the State in granting land/shop to the petitioners in the light of the Government decision dated 9.9.1976. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)