IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5744 of 2007 HARI PRAKASH SINGH, son of Badshah Singh, resident of village –Chainpatti, PS & District – Gopalganj ……. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Gopalganj 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Gopalganj ……. …… Respondents ----------- 08- 27.1.2009 Heard Mr. Uma Kant Shukla for the petitioner, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to learned AAG IX. It arises out of a land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to follow the detailed procedure for acquisition of the lands in question, and to desist from taking recourse to acquisition of the lands as per the emergency provision. 2. After creation of the district of Gopalganj, the State Government decided to set up a full-fledged establishment of the police administration. This necessitated acquisition of lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner’s land has also been notified for the purpose. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that the respondent authorities are seeking to acquire the lands in question as per the emergency provision which is not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. In his submission, the lands of the petitioner and those of others include temples, canals, etc. and unfit to set up police lines. These objections can not be considered if the provisions of Section 5A of the Act are applied and lands are acquired as per the emergency provision. He submits that it is imperative for the Government to consider the objectives, and the - 2 - circumstances, which may justify acquisition on emergency basis. He relies on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Kameshwar Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, [1996(1) PLJR 510]. 2. Learned Govt. Counsel has opposed the writ petition and placed reliance on his counter affidavit. He has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli, AIR 2002 SC 1314 =[2002(2) PLJR 276 (SC)] (para 5). 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears on a perusal of the counter affidavit that in view of the growing menace of law and order, the State Government decided to set up the police lines most expeditiously. In any case, once the district of Gopalganj was created, the police lines as per the requirements of the district had to be set up. The State Government has rightly took the decision to set up the police line urgently and by resorting to the emergency provision under the Act. It is manifest from the counter affidavit, particularly the inter-departmental communication dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure-B), that the objections of the land owners were duly considered and rejected. Consequently, the State Government issued the notification in the District Gazette of 12.4.07 (Annexure –D) notifying the lands for acquisition on emergency basis. We are thus convinced that acquisition of the lands for the purpose in question has validly been taken by resorting to the emergency provision. Learned government counsel has rightly relied on paragraph-5 of the judgment in First - 3 - Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli (supra), and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- “5. It is indeed difficult for us to uphold the conclusion of the Division Bench that acquisition is mala fide on the mere fact that physical possession had not been delivered pursuant to the earlier directions of a learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court dated 25.8.94. When the Court is called upon to examine the question as to whether the acquisition is mala fide or not, what is necessary to be inquired into and found out is, whether the purpose for which the acquisition is going to be made, is a real purpose or a camouflage. By no stretch of imagination, exercise of power for acquisition can be held to be mala fide, so long as, the purpose of acquisition continues and as has already been stated, there existed emergency to acquire the premises in question. The premises which was under occupation of the students of the National Medical College, Calcutta, was obviously badly needed for the college and the appropriate authority having failed in their attempt earlier twice, the orders having been quashed by the High Court, had taken the third attempt of issuing notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act, such acquisition cannot be held to be mala fide and, therefore, the conclusion of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment that the acquisition is mala fide, must be set aside and we accordingly set aside the same.” 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The impugned action cannot be faulted. The petitioner is trying to raise unnecessary objections to a public cause. The writ petition is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl