IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.114 of 2008 NIRANJAN PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS With LPA No.104 of 2008 ABHAY KUMAR SINGH &ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III Mr. Satyabir Bharti, JC to AAG III ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------- Dated, the 20th August, 2008. We heard counsel for the parties. 2. These two Letters Patent Appeals have been taken up together as they raise identical controversy. The appellants are unsuccessful petitioners. The writ petitions were filed in the year 2003 challenging the entire acquisition proceeding of the subject land initiated in the year 1980. Both the writ petitions have been dismissed by the Single Judge by a common order dated 22nd November, 2007. 3. In our considered view, the writ petitions by the petitioners (appellants herein) were wholly misconceived, frivolous and devoid of any substance for the reasons that we indicate hereinafter and, therefore, dismissal of these writ petitions by the - 2 - Single Judge cannot be faulted. 4. That by notification issued on 7th July, 1980 the subject land was sought to be acquired for rehabilitation of 300 families who were flood affected is not in dispute. On that very day, the State Government invoked an urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, „the Act‟) and dispensed with an inquiry under section 5 A. The notification under section 17(4) was published in Bihar Gazette on 15th July, 1980. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 16th July, 1980, the declaration was made under section 6 of the Act. The award for the compulsory acquisition of the subject land as well as some other land came to be passed on 19th May, 1982. Save and except these petitioners and a few others, the expropriated owners received compensation for compulsory acquisition of their land. The State Government appears to have deposited the compensation amount pertaining to the petitioners and a few others with the Land Acquisition Officer as per award dated 19th May, 1982 on 5th October, 1982. The possession of the entire land acquired including that of petitioners was also taken at that time. 5. It appears that somewhere in the year 1982 (counsel for the petitioner is not able to tell us as to whether the writ petitions were filed after the award was passed or before that), the petitioners approached this court challenging the acquisition of their land by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3233 of 1982 (Vijay Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors). The said writ petition was - 3 - disposed of by the following order – “The point that was pressed by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, appearing for the petitioners, in challenging the proposed acquisition of certain lands under the provisions of the land acquisition Act, was that no notice was personally served upon the petitioners. It appears that the state counsel was allowed time to seek instruction in this regards and learned Government pleader- II accepts the objection of the petitioners in this respect and agrees that in order to save time in following the procedure of servicing notice to the petitioners under section 4 of the Act, the petitioners may be allowed to file their objections under section 5 of the Act to the proposed acquisition before the appropriate authority. In view of this concession on the part of the state, the application is disposed of accordingly.” 6. From the aforesaid order, it is not clear as to whether the court‟s attention was invited to the position that the declaration under section 6 of the Act came to be made after invocation of urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Act or not. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the court only granted limited relief to the petitioners by granting them liberty to file their objections to the acquisition of their land and a further direction that the said objections would be considered by the concerned authority accordingly. The court has not, in its order dated 23rd September, 1982, interfered with the declaration made on 16th July, 1980 under section 6 of the Act nor the Award dated 19th May, 1982. The order dated 23rd September, 1982 has to be read to mean that post decisional hearing was permitted in as much as by the court to objections to the acquisition were permitted to be filed for consideration by the competent authority. - 4 - 7. This is not in dispute that pursuant to the liberty granted by this court in the order dated 23rd September, 1982, the objections were filed by the petitioners and that the said objections have been rejected by the competent authority. 8. The acquisition having attained finality in all respects inasmuch as the award was passed way back in the year 1982, the possession of the land was taken at that time; the flood affected families rehabilitated, challenge to the acquisition almost after two decades of the completion of acquisition is nothing but frivolous and misconceived; rather abuse of the process of the court. The dismissal thereof by the Single Judge, therefore, cannot be faulted. 9. Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/