IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.286 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 3. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MADHUBANI 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, JAINAGAR, MADHUBANI …… APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAM PREET SINGH @ RAM PREET MAHTO SON OF SRI SUKAN SINGH 2. SUKHDEO MAHTO SON OF LATE BABUJEE MAHTO 3. RAM SOCHAN PURVEY @ RAM LOCHAN PURVEY SON OF LATE MUSHARU PURVEY 4. JAGDISH MAHTO SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR MAHTO 5. SUKRIT MAHTO SON OF LATE RAJENDRA MAHTO 6. LAXMI NARAYAN MAHTO SON OF LATE BANSHI MAHTO 7. RAJDEO MAHTO SON OF LATE ACHCHHALAL MAHTO 8. LAL BIHARI SINGH @ BIHARI SINGH SON OF LATE MADHURI SINGH 9. RAM AYODHI SINGH SON OF SRI RAM LAKHAN MAHTON @ RAM LAKHAN SINGH 10. RAJESHWAR SINGH SON OF SRI ABHRAN SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELHI BETTONHA, P.O. BELA VIA JAINAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI … RESPONDENT IST SET 11. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMANDANT-14TH BETTALIAN, S.S.B. JAI NAGAR, MADHUBANI …. RESPONDENT IIND SET WITH LPA No.406 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMANDANT 14TH BATTALION, SSB, JAINAGAR, MADHUBANI 2. THE COMMANDANT, SSB CENTRE, BELHI, BATANHA …. APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAM PREET SINGH @ RAM PREET MAHTO SON OF SRI SUKAN SINGH 2. SUKHDEO MAHTO SON OF LATE BABUJEE MAHTO 3. RAM SOCHAN PURVEY @ RAM LOCHAN PURVEY SON OF LATE MUSHARU PURVEY 4. JAGDISH MAHTO SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR MAHTO 5. SUKRIT MAHTO SON OF LATE RAJENDRA MAHTO 6. LAXMI NARAYAN MAHTO SON OF LATE BANSHI MAHTO 7. RAJDEO MAHTO SON OF LATE ACHCHHALAL MAHTO 8. LAL BIHARI SINGH @ BIHARI SINGH SON OF LATE MADHURI SINGH 9. RAM AYODHI SINGH SON OF SRI RAM LAKHAN MAHTON @ RAM LAKHAN SINGH 10. RAJESHWAR SINGH SON OF SRI ABHRAN SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELHI BETTONHA, P.O. BELA VIA JAINAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI … RESPONDENT IST SET 11. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 12. THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 13. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MADHUBANI 14. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, JAINAGAR, MADHUBANI …. RESPONDENT 2ND SET ----------- 2 For the Appellants : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.III Mrs. Binita Singh, Asstt. Counsel to AAG III (In L.P.A.No.286 of 2009) Mr. Sudhir Singh, A.S.G. Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, C.G.C (In L.P.A.No.406 of 2009) For the Respondents : Mr. Faruq Ahmad Khan, Advocate --------- 4. 31.8.2009 Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General No.III for the appellants in L.P.A.No.286 of 2009, Mr. Sudhir Singh, Assistant Solicitor General of India for the appellants in L.P.A.No.406 of 2009 and Mr. Faruq Ahmad Khan for the respondents. These two appeals are directed against the same order dated 20.8.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.12891 of 2005. One appeal has been filed by the State Government and the other appeal has been filed by the Union of India. On the basis of the requisition made by the Union of India for the purpose of establishing border out post of Sashastra Surakcha Bal (S.S.B.) the land belonging to present respondents sought to be acquired by invoking emergency clause under section 4 read with Section 17(4) and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was dispensed with. On receipt of the notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the present respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition. In the writ petition, the main contention which had been raised was to the effect that some land belonging to the State Government are available in the vicinity which 3 could have been utilized for the purpose of establishing the out post. Similarly it was also contended that other private lands which were also more suitable were also available but without considering the above aspects, on the request made by the Union of India the lands is sought to be acquired. It is further contended that even approaching the State Government and requesting for selection of suitable side, the officer concerned, namely, S.S.B had already selected the present land which is not in accordance with law under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. In the writ petition two counter affidavits have been filed. Initially, though it was admitted that certain lands were available in the vicinity, those lands were not suitable for the purpose of establishing the out post. In the subsequent counter affidavit further details were furnished wherein it was indicated that on the basis of the objection of the respondents the lands in question had been visited and it was found that the lands selected by the S.S.B was most suitable. It was further indicated that some of the lands which belonged to other people and the land belonging to the State Government was not suitable for the purpose of establishing border out post of S.S.B., but the learned Single Judge has quashed the acquisition mainly on the ground that sufficient materials have not been produced to indicate that the government’s vacant land was not suitable. The Single Judge further 4 concluded that there was some inconsistency between the first counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit and moreover the S.S.B before approaching the State Government had already selected the site without consulting the district authority and the district authority merely proceeded with the application and found that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge was that without considering the relevant factors and the availability of land in the vicinity the land in question have been acquired. We have heard at length the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the Counsel contesting respondent nos.1 and 2. We are afraid, the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the land acquisition cannot be sustained. Whether the land which has been acquired is suitable for the purpose of establishing the out post of the S.S.B or not, it was an administrative decision and a matter of discretion within the jurisdiction of the requisitioning authority to decide. There is no dispute regarding the fact that S.S.B which is a semi para military force formed for patrolling Indo-Nepal boarder has to establish the out post over the said land and obviously it has discretion to select the land which would be suitable for its purpose, the matter is within the sole discretion of the requisitioning authority. In our considered opinion, the learned Single 5 Judge has exceeded the known para meters of jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters and has interfered with the land acquisition and such order cannot be sustained. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Narendra/ ( P. K. Misra, CJ. ) ( Anjana Prakash, J. )