IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.719 of 2008 1. GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE TULSI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MILL ROAD, DISTRICT TOWN KHAGARIA AT PRESENT MURGIA CHOWK, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA 2. ASHA RANI, WIFE OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MILL ROAD, DISTRICT TOWN KHAGARIA AT PRESENT MURGIA CHOWK, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA 3. BHARAT KUMAR, SON OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MILL ROAD, DISTRICT TOWN KHAGARIA AT PRESENT MURGIA CHOWK, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA 4. DEEPAK GUPTA, SON OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MILL ROAD, DISTRICT TOWN KHAGARIA AT PRESENT MURGIA CHOWK, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA 5. MUKESH GUPTA, SON OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MILL ROAD, DISTRICT TOWN KHAGARIA AT PRESENT MURGIA CHOWK, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA 6. PUJA GUPTA, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, WIFE OF SRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF POST BALIA, DISTRICT – BALIA (U.P) 7. REKHA GUPTA, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, WIFE OF SRI DEEPAK GUPTA, RESIDENT OF AT PRESENT NALA ROAD, P.O. & P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA …………….APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KHAGARIA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KHAGARIA 4. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KHAGARIA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KHAGARIA …….……….RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General No.III Mr.Satyabir Bharti, J.C. to A.A.G.III ----------- 7. 06.01.2009 Writ petitioners-appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.6047 of 2003 dismissing the writ application, have preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, appears on behalf of the appellants. Respondents-State is represented by Additional 2 Advocate General No.III. Writ petitioners-appellants challenged the notification dated 13.8.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondents-State took the plea that the land having already been acquired and possession taken, notification dated 13.8.2001 was wrongly issued and allowed to lapse. Writ petitioners-appellants then challenged the notification issued under Section 4, 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 18th of November, 1987. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not possible to be simultaneously issued. This contention has been rejected by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, observing as follows : “5. The submission that notification under Sections 4 and 6 could not have been issued simultaneously should have been raised at the appropriate time and not belatedly after about 20 years of the issue of the notification/declaration dated 18.11.1987. Possession of the lands stood taken over by the State as far back on 31.3.1989, I am not inclined to consider the challenge of the land acquisition proceedings impugned in this case. The observation of this Court rendered in the order dated 25.09.2001, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3810 of 1995, Annexure-1 that petitioners are at liberty to deal with their lands is also not to be relied upon in these proceedings, as such, observations were made by this Court without noticing the fact that the land stood acquired under proceedings initiated on 18.11.1987 possession whereof was taken over on 31.3.1989 and as the observations/declaration were ignoramus of 3 the record the petitioners cannot take any advantage thereof.” We do not find any error in the same. Appeal stands dismissed. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Narendra/