IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.887 of 2008 ---------- 1. Makeshwar Mahto son of late Gauri Mahto 2. Nago Mahto son of late Natho Mahto 3. Urmila Devi wife of Jogendra Singh, all residents of village – Hassanpur, P.O. Mahsona, P.S. Lakhisarai, District – Lakhisarai …… Petitioners - Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna 3. Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Managing Director, Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agricultural Marketing Board Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 6. Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger 7. Collector, Lakhisarai, District – Lakhisarai 8. Subdivisional Officer – cum- Special Officer, Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Lakhisarai, District – Lakhisarai ……… Respondents – Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 14th November, 2008. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, for which an application (I.A. No. 6641 of 2008) has been made, in our considered view, the Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be 2 admitted. 2. The appellants’ grievance is that in the year 1976, their land was acquired for the purpose of construction of market yard and as a result thereof, they became landless and as per the government decision, they are entitled to land/shop for their rehabilitation. 3. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the suit filed by the husband of one of the petitioners having been dismissed ultimately, petitioners were not entitled to any relief. Despite having held that, the Single Judge observed that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the revenue authorities in granting land/shop to the petitioners in the light of the Government decision dated 9th September, 1976. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners (appellants herein) that no compensation for compulsory acquisition of their lands have been given to them. Once the compensation has been given for the compulsory acquisition of the land, the expropriated owner does not have any right to get alternative land in lieu of the acquired land. However, the appellants seek to claim entitlement to land/shop in lieu of acquired land on the basis of the communication dated 9th September, 1976 sent by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar to Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board wherein it is stated that by acquisition of land, four persons became landless and they may be given land equivalent to the acquired land. It appears that Yogendra Singh (husband of present appellant no. 3) filed 3 a civil suit for the enforcement of the decision taken by the State government reflected in the communication dated 9th September, 1976. Although the trial judge decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1993, upon appeal being preferred, Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Yogendra Singh, dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, passed on 17th June, 1996, filed Second Appeal No. 209 of 1996. This court dismissed the Second Appeal on 12th April, 2006, considering the matter thus: “Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as far back as in the year 1975 the Government proposed to acquire the land but the same was objected to by the villages, hence proposal for acquiring the said land was cancelled on 12.1.1976 and acquisition was said to be stayed in 1976, whereafter in the year 1976 there was agreement between the villagers and the Government and accordingly the Government issued a letter to the Marketing Board dated 09.9.1976 (Ext.4) granting condition of acquisition that the land-holders shall be given equal adjacent land or shop or service in the Board in lieu of the said acquisition and the said terms of the letter were accepted by the chairman of the Board vide letter dated 20.9.1976. He also states that the defendants stated in their written statement and five P.Ws. deposed that similarly situated persons, who lands were acquired, were given service and shops were under construction and these contentions were supported by Exts. 4 to 4/i as well as Ext.C, which are letters and orders of the Government as well as of the Board. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that in the said circumstances it was incumbent upon the defendants-respondents to respect the agreement and to give service or allot shops to him in accordance thereof, which was not done and hence the plaintiff-appellant was constrained to move the Court. He relies upon decisions in the cases of Union of India vs. B.S.Basu and another report in 1982 (5) B.L.J.597, the Union of India and others Vs. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 718 4 and M/s BASF India Limited vs. The state of Bihar and others reported in 1992 (2) P.L.J.R. 714 holding that agreement arrived at the meeting between the parties was binding upon the authorities concerned and they had to carry out the terms of the agreement, which is also binding in terms of equity as the Government is not immune to the rule and principle established. The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant is that the learned trial court considering the said matter decreed his suit but the learned court of appeal below completely ignored the real facts and evidence as well as findings of the trial court, which were based on the said facts and evidence. From the arguments of the parties, it is quite apparent that the entire case of the plaintiff-appellant hinges upon some letters of the Board but there is no agreement on record to show that any term of agreement was arrived between the plaintiff-appellant and the Board as well as the State, nor any date of such agreement or the list of terms and conditions were ever provided. Hence in the said circumstances, neither evidence relied upon by the plaintiff-appellant, nor the case laws cited by him is relevant in the instant case. Furthermore a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s BASF India Limited (supra) has defined `contract’ in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution of India and four types of contract have been envisaged but in my view the type of alleged oral agreement, which is being claimed by the plaintiff- appellant, does not find place therein. Furthermore the learned court of appeal below has arrived at the specific finding that not a single chit of paper has been filed to show that the decision of the Government in the form of assurance or contract was made under Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India and in absence of such contract, Government cannot be sued for fulfilling the conditions as has been pointed out. Another finding which has been arrived at by the learned court of appeal below is that after acquisition of the land, the properties vested in the State and in that view of the matter, any order restraining the State by permanent injunction from utilizing the properties is quite illegal, erroneous and unjustified. It also arrived at another finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove as to when notice was sent or delivered in the office of the defendants-appellants and consequently the plaintiff has also failed to prove that the suit was brought after expiry of 60 days from the date of service or delivery of notice. In my view all the said findings are findings of fact arrived at by the final court of facts and no substantial 5 question of law arises in the instant case, nor the learned counsel for the appellant has been able to make out any such question. Accordingly this second appeal fails miserably and is dismissed.” 5. This court, accordingly, in the Second Appeal, held that as a matter of fact, there was no agreement between the expropriated owner and the Marketing Board as well as the State government. The claim of the husband of the appellant no. 3 having been negated wholly and squarely by this Court, the writ petition filed by the present appellants for the self-same relief, was wholly misconceived and, as a matter of fact, an abuse of the process. 6. Dismissal of writ petition, in the circumstances, by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. 7. This disposes of I.A. No. 6641 of 2008 for condonation of delay as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/