IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1382 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2618 of 2007 ====================================================== Kumud Kishore Narayan, S/O Late Alakh Prakash Narayan, R/O Mohalla- Kanhaiya Mishra, Pokhar (K.M.Tank), Laheria Sarai, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga. .... Petitioner .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Hon’ble Minister, Housing, Bihar - Cum - Appellate Authority, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Housing Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Collector, Darbhanga. 6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, at P.S. & P.O., Distt.- Darbhanga. 7. The Bihar Housing Board through its Managing Director, Patna. 8. The Secretary, Bihar Housing Board, Patna. 9. The Competent Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 10. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 11. The Executive Engineer, State Housing Board, at, P.S. & Distt.- Darbhanga. .... Respondents .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-1 For the Housing Board : Mr. Amarnath Deo, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court LPA No.1382 of 2010 (6) dt.21-11-2011 2 / 3 2 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 21-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8th July 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2618 of 2007, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant claims that he is the owner of the disputed land, khesara no. 34, khata no.3, admeasuring 17.20 sq. meters situated at Darbhanga. The said piece of land has been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the Bihar State Housing Board. The acquisition proceeding was initiated in 1976. The award was declared in 1990. The appellant raised objection in 1991 claiming that the land belonged to him and that no notice was issued upon him. The challenge to the acquisition proceeding before the authorities below and in CWJC No. 12247 of 2002 failed. The appellant thereafter raised the issue afresh in above CWJC no. 2618 of 2007. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, however, has observed that the appellant may avail remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to establish his title and that if such application is made within two months from the date of the order, the same may be entertained. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey has appeared for the appellant. He has vehemently argued that the appellant was the owner of the land in question and that he was required to be given notice of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has submitted that the disputed piece of the land requires to be de-acquisitioned under Section 48 of the Act. He has submitted that although the appellant was the owner of the land, the award was declared in the name of one Patna High Court LPA No.1382 of 2010 (6) dt.21-11-2011 3 / 3 3 Sushil Kumar Sinha. The said Sushil Kumar Sinha refused to receive award money on the premise that he was not the owner of the land. There is nothing on the record to suggest that in 1976, on the date of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant was the owner of the land or that the appellant had raised objection under Section 5A of the Act. The dispute was raised by the appellant in 1991 after the award was declared and after the aforesaid Sushil Kumar Sinha had filed affidavit refusing to receive the award money. The appellant has now raised demand for de-acquisition and has challenged the acquisition proceeding for the first time in the year 2002, although he was aware of the acquisition proceeding at least since 1991. Obviously, the appellant’s challenge to the acquisition proceeding or claim for de-acquisition is devoid of any merit. If at all the appellant is able to establish his title, he may claim the award money deposited by the Housing Board. For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal is dismissed in limine. B.Tiwary/Anjani/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)