Case: Ajodhya Bhagat &amp; Others Vs. The State of Bihar &amp; Others

Section 6 notification is not by the Collector but by the local Government, and, therefore, it is bad. Fourth, the notification is for Patna Improvement Trust but it appears that it is for the Samiti. The Samiti paid the money but the provisions of Part VII of the Act have not been followed.17. The Solicitor General rightly contended that no arguments had been advanced before the High Court with regard to notification not being by the Collector, and that there was no satisfaction of the Collector with regard to Section 4 notification. He rightly submitted that the Government would have given answer of facts, and, therefore, this Court is not only deprived of facts but also of the judgment of the High Court on these aspect. We are, therefore, unable to allow the appellants to canvass those two grounds.18. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegation in the petition was that the Collector on 20 July, 1961 asked the authority to publish notification under the emergent procedure dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. The notification was published under the signature of the Collector on 17 July, 1961. Therefore, there was no decision of the local Government under section 17 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act and the requirements of Section 5-A could not be disposed with.19. The High Court said that the Government was unable to produce the file conveying the decision of the Government. The High Court said that the "non-traceability of the Government order in the Secretariat file must in the circumstances be attributed to the deliberate destruction of the relevant papers by the interested parties." The High Court further said that acquisition proceedings had been initiated in 1961 under the instructions of the government. But for the "intervention of influential persons" it is highly improbable that the Government would have ordered stay of the entire land acquisition proceeding on 3 May, 1965.20. The facts found by the High Court are these. The Patana Improvement Trust requested that the emergency provisions of the Act should be applied. The Deputy Collector in-Charge pointed out to the Collector that the draft notification must be sent to the Government in the Revenue Department which could apply the emergency provisions and dispense with the compliance of Section 5-A of the Act. The Collector prepared a draft notification, signed it and sent it to the Government along with the letter dated 20 July, 1961. The notification was actually published on 6 August, 1961. On that very day the Deputy Collector directed a copy of the notification to be sent to the persons interested. On 4 September, 1961 the Deputy Collector again recorded that notification had been issued under the emergent procedure. There are indications of the receipt of the letter of the Collector in the Secretariat on 22 July, 1961. On 26 July, 1961 the note in the Secretariat file referred to the receipt of the letter. The High Court on these facts held that the circumstances led to the inescapable conclusion that the Government must have passed the necessary orders.21. The High Court referred to the certified copy of the order sheet of the Land Acquisition Case from 14 July, 1961 to 14 October, 1961 in support of the conclusion reached by the High Court. The order sheet dated 15 July, 1967 shows that the Chairman, Improvement Trust wanted 64.49 acres to be acquired under the emergent procedure. The Deputy Collector after personal inspection was satisfied that the lands were waste and arable lands and there was objection to their acquisition under the emergent procedure. The Deputy Collector suggested to the Collector that a draft notification for that purpose should be prepared and sent to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the revenue Department for permission. The draft was approved by the Collector and was signed by him on 17 July, 1961. It was sent to the Government by the Collector with letter dated 20 July, 1961. Then the notice dated 6 August, 1961 was published. The notice mentions that the Government gave its decision under section 17 (4) of the Act. On 4 September, 1961 the note in the order sheet states that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act under the emergent procedure has been published on 6 August, 1961. The further note in the order sheet dated 4 September, 1961 states that the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act along with declaration plan has been prepared and is submitted for approval.22. On these facts the High Court held that the appellants did not established that the Government did not give their approval to the application of emergency provisions of Section 17 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. The High Court was right in repelling the suggestion of the appellants that the Government did not give their approval to the application of emergency provisions for the purpose of acquisition.23. The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of delay and laches. The High Court relied on two important facts. First, that there was delivery of possession. The appellants alleged that it was a paper transaction. The High Court rightly rejected that contention, Secondly, the High Court said that the trust invested several lakhs of rupees for the construction of roads and material for development purposes. The appellants were in full knowledge of the same. The appellants did not take any steps. The High Court rightly said that to allow this type of challenge to an acquisition of large block of land piecemeal by the owners of some of the plots in succession would not be proper. If this type of challenge is encouraged the various owners of small plots will come up with writ petition and hold up the acquisition proceedings for more than a generation.The High Court rightly exercised discretion against the appellants. We do not see any reason to take a contrary views t the discretion exercised by the High Court.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]19. The High Court said that the Government was unable to produce the file conveying the decision of the Government. The High Court said that theof the Government order in the Secretariat file must in the circumstances be attributed to the deliberate destruction of the relevant papers by the interested parties." The High Court further said that acquisition proceedings had been initiated in 1961 under the instructions of the government. But for the "intervention of influential persons" it is highly improbable that the Government would have ordered stay of the entire land acquisition proceeding on 3 May, 1965.20. The facts found by the High Court are these. The Patana Improvement Trust requested that the emergency provisions of the Act should be applied. The Deputy Collectorpointed out to the Collector that the draft notification must be sent to the Government in the Revenue Department which could apply the emergency provisions and dispense with the compliance of Sectionof the Act. The Collector prepared a draft notification, signed it and sent it to the Government along with the letter dated 20 July, 1961. The notification was actually published on 6 August, 1961. On that very day the Deputy Collector directed a copy of the notification to be sent to the persons interested. On 4 September, 1961 the Deputy Collector again recorded that notification had been issued under the emergent procedure. There are indications of the receipt of the letter of the Collector in the Secretariat on 22 July, 1961. On 26 July, 1961 the note in the Secretariat file referred to the receipt of the letter. The High Court on these facts held that the circumstances led to the inescapable conclusion that the Government must have passed the necessary orders.21. The High Court referred to the certified copy of the order sheet of the Land Acquisition Case from 14 July, 1961 to 14 October, 1961 in support of the conclusion reached by the High Court. The order sheet dated 15 July, 1967 shows that the Chairman, Improvement Trust wanted 64.49 acres to be acquired under the emergent procedure. The Deputy Collector after personal inspection was satisfied that the lands were waste and arable lands and there was objection to their acquisition under the emergent procedure. The Deputy Collector suggested to the Collector that a draft notification for that purpose should be prepared and sent to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the revenue Department for permission. The draft was approved by the Collector and was signed by him on 17 July, 1961. It was sent to the Government by the Collector with letter dated 20 July, 1961. Then the notice dated 6 August, 1961 was published. The notice mentions that the Government gave its decision under section 17 (4) of the Act. On 4 September, 1961 the note in the order sheet states that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act under the emergent procedure has been published on 6 August, 1961. The further note in the order sheet dated 4 September, 1961 states that the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act along with declaration plan has been prepared and is submitted for approval.22. On these facts the High Court held that the appellants did not established that the Government did not give their approval to the application of emergency provisions of Section 17 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. The High Court was right in repelling the suggestion of the appellants that the Government did not give their approval to the application of emergency provisions for the purpose of acquisition.23. The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of delay and laches. The High Court relied on two important facts. First, that there was delivery of possession. The appellants alleged that it was a paper transaction. The High Court rightly rejected that contention, Secondly, the High Court said that the trust invested several lakhs of rupees for the construction of roads and material for development purposes. The appellants were in full knowledge of the same. The appellants did not take any steps. The High Court rightly said that to allow this type of challenge to an acquisition of large block of land piecemeal by the owners of some of the plots in succession would not be proper. If this type of challenge is encouraged the various owners of small plots will come up with writ petition and hold up the acquisition proceedings for more than a generation.The High Court rightly exercised discretion against the appellants. We do not see any reason to take a contrary views t the discretion exercised by the High Court.