Case: Awadh Bihari Yadava  Vs. State Of Bihar

898 , to substantiate the plea. We are of the view that Jai Singhs case is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the appellant before this Court prayed for quashing the demand made against him in respect of royalty. His case was that gypsum ore was less than the particular percentage of purity. Whereas according to the revenue, it was not so established and the substance contained a higher percentage of purity. The plea of the appellant was not accepted by the statutory authorities. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court was dismissed on the ground that it involved determination of disputed questions of fact and the appellant had an alternate remedy. Against the dismissal of the write petition the appellant filed an appeal in this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. He also filed a suit wherein the same question was agitated which was the subject matter of the writ petition. In these circumstances, this Court held that the appellant, in the said case, cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. We are also of the view that ordinarily the above rule should prevail. There may be extraordinary situations or circumstances, which may even warrant, a different approach, where the orders passed by the Court are sought to be violated or thwarted with impunity. The Court cannot be a silent spectator in such extraordinary situations. The position obtaining herein is rather a different and unusual one. The writ petition was filed by the Society (C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88), praying for a direction to the respondents to give effect to the directions contained in the earlier judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, dated 23-9-1984, and for other consequential or incidental reliefs. So, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the relief sought was to remove the encroachments from the lands or to remove the unauthorised constructions, which are covered by the encroachment case or the title suit. They may be incidental or consequential to the main relief, in giving effect to the earlier directions or orders of Court. But such relief cannot be withheld or denied. In the judgment dated 23-9-1984, rendered in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, the Court categorically held that non-passing of the award will not nullify the acquisition, the validity of the acquisition was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the encroachments or the unauthorised structures were put up by persons in the property at their own risk, and it was further observed that once possession of the land was taken by the Government the fact that the owner of the land entered upon the land, will not obliterate the consequence of vesting, and allowed the writ petition filed by the Society, and quashed the steps taken for de-requisitioning of the land requested by the Authority and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Patna to prepare the award as expeditiously as possible. The plea of the respondents that the project itself was rendered an impossibility on account of excessive encroachments or unauthorised constructions, was repelled, and relying upon the decision of this Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC 1767 , it was held that once possession of the land was taken by the Government, even if the owner of the land entered upon the land and resumed possession of it the very next moment, such act does not have effect of obliterating the consequences of vesting. In allowing the prayer of the Society in C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88, by a common judgment dated 30-7-1993, the High Court was only implementing its earlier order and directions in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 which it was bound to do in the circumstances. We hold that the directions and orders contained in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, which were not interfered with, by this Court in special leave petition, by order dated 21-3-1984, should be fully and effectively implemented. We hold so. 12. Mr. Sanyal, senior counsel feebly raised the plea that the Government authorities did not take possession of a small portion of the land, about 7 acres; and there is no award relating thereto, and the proceedings regarding that portion of the land, had lapsed. This plea is without substance. In our view the proceedings dated 31-7-1984 is in substance an award passed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3421/82. The entire land, for which request for acquisition was made by the Authority, was delivered over to the Authority. Possession was taken of the entire land and the plea that possession of a small portion of the land was not taken in against the record (See AIR 1974 SC 1886 at 1889). 13. All the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants fail. The appeals are wholly without merit and we dismiss them with costs. It is distressing to note that the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated for a very laudable purpose, more than 37 years ago, is not yet complete. At one point of time, it was brought to the notice of the Court that even the files relating to the acquisition of land are not traceable. The High Court was constrained to hold, on an earlier occasion, that non-traceability of the files must be attributed deliberate destruction of the relevant files by the interested parties, and but for the intervention of influential persons, the Government would not have stayed the entire proceedings as it did on 3-5-1965. We are constrained to observe that the hands of the interested parties seem to be still active, and the intervention of such influential persons has not disappeared (AIR 1974 SC 1886 (1888)). A laudable and noble cause is delayed for more than 3 decades, under on pretext or the other. We express our anguish in the entire episode.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In that case, the appellant before this Court prayed for quashing the demand made against him in respect of royalty. His case was that gypsum ore was less than the particular percentage of purity. Whereas according to the revenue, it was not so established and the substance contained a higher percentage of purity. The plea of the appellant was not accepted by the statutory authorities. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court was dismissed on the ground that it involved determination of disputed questions of fact and the appellant had an alternate remedy. Against the dismissal of the write petition the appellant filed an appeal in this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. He also filed a suit wherein the same question was agitated which was the subject matter of the writ petition. In these circumstances, this Court held that the appellant, in the said case, cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. We are also of the view that ordinarily the above rule should prevail. There may be extraordinary situations or circumstances, which may even warrant, a different approach, where the orders passed by the Court are sought to be violated or thwarted with impunity. The Court cannot be a silent spectator in such extraordinary situations. The position obtaining herein is rather a different and unusual one. The writ petition was filed by the Society (C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88), praying for a direction to the respondents to give effect to the directions contained in the earlier judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, dated 23-9-1984, and for other consequential or incidental reliefs. So, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the relief sought was to remove the encroachments from the lands or to remove the unauthorised constructions, which are covered by the encroachment case or the title suit. They may be incidental or consequential to the main relief, in giving effect to the earlier directions or orders of Court. But such relief cannot be withheld or denied. In the judgment dated 23-9-1984, rendered in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, the Court categorically held that non-passing of the award will not nullify the acquisition, the validity of the acquisition was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the encroachments or the unauthorised structures were put up by persons in the property at their own risk, and it was further observed that once possession of the land was taken by the Government the fact that the owner of the land entered upon the land, will not obliterate the consequence of vesting, and allowed the writ petition filed by the Society, and quashed the steps taken for de-requisitioning of the land requested by the Authority and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Patna to prepare the award as expeditiously as possible. The plea of the respondents that the project itself was rendered an impossibility on account of excessive encroachments or unauthorised constructions, was repelled, and relying upon the decision of this Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC 1767 , it was held that once possession of the land was taken by the Government, even if the owner of the land entered upon the land and resumed possession of it the very next moment, such act does not have effect of obliterating the consequences of vesting. In allowing the prayer of the Society in C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88, by a common judgment dated 30-7-1993, the High Court was only implementing its earlier order and directions in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 which it was bound to do in the circumstances. We hold that the directions and orders contained in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, which were not interfered with, by this Court in special leave petition, by order dated 21-3-1984, should be fully and effectively implemented. We hold soThis plea is without substance. In our view the proceedings dated 31-7-1984 is in substance an award passed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3421/82. The entire land, for which request for acquisition was made by the Authority, was delivered over to the Authority. Possession was taken of the entire land and the plea that possession of a small portion of the land was not taken in against the record (See AIR 1974 SC 1886 at 1889)13. All the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants fail. The appeals are wholly without merit and we dismiss them with costs. It is distressing to note that the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated for a very laudable purpose, more than 37 years ago, is not yet complete. At one point of time, it was brought to the notice of the Court that even the files relating to the acquisition of land are not traceable. The High Court was constrained to hold, on an earlier occasion, that non-traceability of the files must be attributed deliberate destruction of the relevant files by the interested parties, and but for the intervention of influential persons, the Government would not have stayed the entire proceedings as it did on 3-5-1965. We are constrained to observe that the hands of the interested parties seem to be still active, and the intervention of such influential persons has not disappeared (AIR 1974 SC 1886 (1888)). A laudable and noble cause is delayed for more than 3 decades, under on pretext or the other. We express our anguish in the entire episode.