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

3. The Patna improvement Trust prepared a scheme called Boring Road Development Scheme. The Scheme was approved by the Government in the month of December, 1957. In the month of November, 1959 a notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)4. Respondent No. 4 Budha Graha Nirman Sahyog Samiti Limited requested the Government to acquire land for the purpose of providing land to doctors, lawyers, Government servants and journalists for building purpose. 25.08 acres were acquired under the normal procedure inviting objections under Sectionof the Act. This acquisition was completed on 11th July, 1962. Possession was taken and compensation was paid.5. The Samiti wanted to acquire another block of 32.48 acres. This acquisition was under Section 4 (1) read with Section, 17 (4) of the Act issued on 2nd November 1959. This acquisition was struck down by the High Court at Patna on 2 April, 1960. The Court however said that the Government could initiate fresh proceedings under the Act for acquisition of 32.48 acres of land in accordance with law.6. Thereafter the Scheme of the Trust was approved on 17th December, 1960. The Government gave permission to the Trust to acquire 64.49 acres of land. It appeared that 32.48 acres of land which the Samiti wanted to acquire fell within the area of the Scheme of the Trust. The Government decided that the land of 64.49 acres be acquired by the Trust and development by it and then an area of 32.48 acres be handed over to the Samiti. The Samiti agreed.7. The Collector of Patna issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act read with Bihar Act No. XI of 1961. The notification was signed by the Collector on 17 July, 1961 and was issued on 6 August, 1961.8. The Bihar Act XI of 1961 made certain amendments to the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 4 (1) of the Act the Government alone had the authority to issue a notification in the Gazette that land in any locality is needed for public purpose. As a result of the Bihar amendment to Section 4 the Collector was given concurrent power to issue such a notification. The Collectors notification was not required to be published in the Gazette but could be validly published in the office of the Collector. Section 17 of the Act contains certain provisions which are described as emergency provisions. The Bihar Act effected certain amendments to Section 17. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act, as applicable to Bihar, state that in case of urgency, whenever the Government so direct, the Collector though no such award has been made, may on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the declaration mentioned in Section 6, take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a Company. The important provision in Section 17 is that the Collector cannot take recourse to the provisions without an appropriate direction from the Government as stated in that Section.9. On 6 August, 1961 a notice was published in the Gazette. The notice stated that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17 (4) of the Act the local Government decided that in view of the urgency of the project, provisions of Sectionshall not apply. The notification in short records that the acquisition was in the opinion of the government one of urgency and the Government gives direction in that behalf and, therefore, the provisions of Sectionwere not applicable.10. On 5 October, 1961 the Government of Bihar issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the same area stating the public purpose.11. On 5 February, 1962 an area of 57.71 acres covered by the aforesaid notification and declaration was handed over by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Trust.12. On 23 January, 1962 some of the dispossessed owners filed a petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition was withdrawn by those petitioners in the month of July, 1964. The petitioners thereafter moved the State government. The State Government stayed the acquisition proceedings by its order dated 3 May, 1965. On 27 November, 1965 the Government vacated the staty and directed the collector to proceed with the acquisition proceedings.13. On 7 April, 1965 the Samiti deposited a sum of Rs. 10,39,360/through the Trust representing the cost of acquisition of 32.48 acres. On 27 April, 1967 the Trust passed a resolution that 25.09 acres of land already in possession of the Samiti and a further area of 32.48 acres acquired by the Trust be made over to the Samiti after deducting such area as might be required for common facilities such as roads, parks, etc. It was also resolved that a contiguous piece of land measuring 57.57 acres be handed over to the Samitits subject to the Samiti making full payment for the development.14. The appellants filed the petition under Article 226 of 19 December, 1967. The appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings in the High Court on three grounds. First, the Government did not decide to apply the emergency provision under Section 17 of the Act and did not give any decision (direction?) to the Collector to attract those provisions and take possessions of the lands. The preliminary notice under Section 4 of the Act which incorporate the decision of the Government under Section 17 is invalid. The omission to comply with the provisions of Sectiontherefore rendered the subsequent notification under section 6 of the Act bad. Second, the Samiti is a company and therefore the procedure prescribed in Part VII of the Act should have been followed. Third, the Collector was himself interested in securing a plot for himself and he acted mala fide.15. The High Court rejected the allegation of mala fide. The High Court held that there is no invalidity in the notification under Section 4. The appellants could not establish that the Government did not give their approval to the application of emergency provisions contained in Section 17 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act for the purpose of acquisition. The High Court held that it was necessary to comply with the provisions of the Sectionof the Act.16. Counsel for the appellants formulated the contentions on four heads. First, no order under Section 17 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act for the application of emergency provisions was made. On 15 July, 1961 a proposal for emergency provisions was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Collector signed the notice on 17 July, 1961 and sent his letter on 20 July, 1961 to the government seeking directions for application of the provisions contained in Section 17 (4) of the Act. No such directions came. Therefore, Second Section 6 notification is bad because Sectionis not attracted in the absence of directions under Section 17 of the Act. Section 4 notification mentions satisfaction of the local Government. Section 4 of the Act as applicable to Bihar states that satisfaction is required either of the local Government or of the Collector. The Collector spoke about the satisfaction of the Local Government. Therefore, it was not a valid notification. Third, 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.

Court's reasoning:
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.