IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4163 of 2004 Ram Krishna Singh, S/o Late Dashrath Singh, resident of village-Dhandiha, P.S.-Koilwar, District-Bhojpur. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah. 4. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur, Arrah. 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah. 6. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Department, Bhojpur, Arrah. ……….Respondents. ----------- 6/- 27.6.2011 Heard the parties. The present writ petitioner has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying the following relief:- (i) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give peaceful possession of the land of the petitioner pertaining to Khata no. 664 Plost no. 3457, Area 33 Decimals after removing all the encroachments made thereon at the behest of the Respondents. (ii) Alternatively, to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the compensation for the land of the petitioner at the market rate of the day when the notification U/s 4 was done. The petitioner submits that an area of 33 decimals of land pertaining to Khata No. 664, Plot No. 3457 in 2 mauza -Koilwar, District-Bhojpur, has been illegally acquired by the respondents in the year 1992. He submits that Gazette Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was done in the year 1992 and as per mandatory provision the declaration under section 6 of the Act was to be done within 3 years of the notification under section 4 of the Act. But, in case of the petitioner, the same was done after 10 years. He further submits that the respondents offered the price of the land at the rate of the year 1975 which is not proper. He submits that the respondents should have offered the existing market value of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land in question is situated on the main Patna- Arrah National Highway. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, the petitioner had moved before this Court in CWJC No. 6420 of 1997. In the said writ petition this Court vide order dated 20.8.1998 directed the respondents to settle the grievance of the petitioner and to pay him the compensation with interest within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner submits that in terms of the order, no payment was made to the petitioner and, thus, he was compelled to file a contempt petition, bearing MJC No. 3 3996 of 1998 and in the said contempt petition, the respondents filed show cause, stating therein that they have not acquired the land of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, sought permission for withdrawal of the contempt petition, which was accorded. While, withdrawing of the contempt petition, as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner liberty was granted to the petitioner to take appropriate action if the respondents had made any obstruction/encroachment over the land in question. The petitioner submits that he went to his land thereafter and found that the land had already been heavily encroached and the respondents had constructed houses for homeless people on the said land. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a fresh writ petition bearing CWJC No. 8398 of 1999 and in that writ petition, the respondents in their counter affidavit accepted the fact that they had acquired the land of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he could know about the fact that the land had been acquired in a proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, for the first time, when the respondents filed their counter affidavit in CWJC No. 8398 of 1999, and, thus, the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of CWJC No. 8398 of 1999 with liberty to challenge the acquisition itself in accordance with law. This Court vide order dated 5.2.2004 permitted the petitioner to withdraw 4 CWJC No. 8398 of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states and submits that on the report of the Circle Officer, Koilwar, dated 8.10.1991, process for acquisition of land for rehabilitation of flood affected family of Village-Suraundha was initiated. The Additional Collector had issued notification vide Gazette No. 1 dated 31.1.1992 under Section 4 of Bihar Land Acquisition Act, 1961, regarding the intention of acquisition of land including land of plot no. 3457, the subject matter of writ petition. The competent authority had given notice to all the interested persons to file their objection under Section 5 A of Land Acquisition Act. No objection was received in this regard from the end of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the meantime, on the report of the Collector, Bhojpur, Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 11 of 1991-92 was dropped, vide order dated 20.5.1999, in view of the fact that the Revenue Department vide letter No. 67 L.A. dated 6.2.1992 had issued a direction that unless the acquisitioning department accords administrative approval and allots funds for payment of compensation the process of land 5 acquisition would not be carried forward. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the whole process of land acquisition was started afresh after obtaining fund and administrative approval by the Government. Accordingly, Notification for land acquisition and declaration was again made on 2.6.2002 and 26.8.2002 respectively. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the entire proceeding was conducted in accordance with Land Acquisition Act and if the petitioner was so aggrieved regarding compensation fixed by the Collector, he should have availed the opportunity by making an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Civil Court. He further submits that the petitioner did not act as per provision of law and has chosen to file the present writ petition which is mis-conceived. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since prior to the filing of counter affidavit in CWJC No. 8398 of 1999, the petitioner was not aware regarding the fact of his land being acquired in a fresh land acquisition proceeding and thus he could not file an application in terms of Section 18 of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to move before the Collector under Section 18 of the Land 6 Acquisition Act, as the petitioner was not aware of the acquisition proceeding initially and subsequently, filed a writ petition before this Court in the year 2004, which remained pending adjudication. In this regard, he relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as reported in 1995 supplementary (4) SCC 53 (Manbodhsa & Ors. Vs. The Government of Orissa and Ors.). After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the Collector concerned in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Counsel for the respondents has no objection. In view of the submissions made at bar and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case as also placing reliance upon the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the petitioner to move before the Collector concerned within a period of one month from today, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in accordance with law and, if, such application is filed, the Collector is required to submit the application to the court concerned in accordance with law. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)