IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.84 of 2009 Ranjeet Prasad Singh son of late Hari Narayan Singh, resident of village Digha, P.S. Digha, District Patna, …. ….Petitioner/Appellant versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, 4. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Bihar, Patna, 5. General Public Works Department through its Secretary, New Delhi, ……….Respondents ….. 5 23.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ petitioner’s land was acquired by the Bihar State Housing Board and notification under section 4 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act(hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”) was published on 19.08.1974. Notification/declaration under section 6 of the Act was published on 20.02.1976. Possession was taken over and award was prepared on 01.02.1983. It was submitted that about 4.03 acres of land was released to one Pandey and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the writ petitioner wanted his land to be released or the order of acquisition to be set aside. Earlier some acquisitions proceedings were 2 challenged at the Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Chandra Bansi Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 1767, held that acquisition cannot be set aside. In fact, it is settled law that once award is passed, the land belongs to the State. Even if the State is not requiring the land for the particular public purpose, it can be used for any other public purpose and even if there is no need of the land for any public purpose, it cannot be released to the party. It can also be sold by public auction. It is the contention of the appellant that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that release of the land in favour of the party was illegal and even that release was set aside, no action was taken by the State authorities. Even if some irregularities were committed by the State authorities, that cannot be perpetuated. After award this Court has no power to set aside the order of acquisition of the land. In fact, challenges to the Court now made were considered and rejected by the Apex Court in the above decision. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)