IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9130 of 1995 1.PRAJAPATI JHA Son of Late Dashrath Jha, 2.Most. Sunaina Devi, Wife of Late Dr. Narsingh Mohan Maharaj 3.Most. Asha Devi aqlias Asha Rani Devi, wife of Late Ram Chandra Mohan Maharaj 4.Raj Kumar Pandey Son of Late Anant Pandey 5.Dineshwar Pandey, Son of Late Badri Pandey, All are residents of Village-Jakarpura, P.O. and P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai (Munger). Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-1. 4.The Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 5.The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 6.The Collector, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai. 7.The Additional Collector, Land Acquisition, Mnger. 8.The District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger. 9.The Sub-divisional Officer, Lakhisarai. 10.The Block Development Officer, Surajgarha Block, Lakhisarai. 11.The Circle Officer, Surajgarha Anchal Office, Surajgarha, Lakhisarai. ----------- 8 12/10/2009 No one appears for the petitioners. Prayer in this writ application is for quashing the entire proceedings of land Acquisition Case No. 8/87-88 in the district of Munger. Such grievance of the petitioners is with regard to 1.5225 acres of land which according to them should not have been acquired inasmuch as on the earlier occasion, the same despite being notified for acquisition had been ultimately denotified. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Government Advocate, who has got no instruction in the matter, would submit that from 2 the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners on 21.5.1998 (I.A. No.6034 of 1998) it appears that land acquisition proceedings has since been completed and the possession of land in question has been taken. He would also submit that acquisition of land was in the public interest and therefore the plea of the petitioners of becoming landless by itself cannot be a ground for not acquiring land. In the opinion of this Court, if land acquisition proceeding has already been completed and possession thereof has already been taken and no stay had been granted by this Court, any interference caused today after 14 years would only amount to reopening of a concluded chapter. Considering this aspect of the matter as also absence of counsel for the petitioners, this Court would only given liberty to the petitioners to approach the Collector for grant of any appropriate relief including allotment of some land for their resettlement in case they can prove that they had become totally landless persons on account of such acquisition. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)