. Thereafter, a declaration of notification bearing No. 1141 dated 04.09.1973 was published in Bihar Gazette dated 05.12.1973 and awards were prepared on 13.07.1974 and almost all the raiyats were paid full compensation amount in the month of July-August, 1974. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 13.08.1974 under Form 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure-A series of the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 10637 of 2021). In CWJC No. 9409 of 2022, the payment vouchers and land possession certificate are annexed as annexures -A & B of the counter affidavit.

14. Learned Advocate General further submits that both the writ petitions have been filed after a lapse of about 49- 50 years of acquisition of land in question. In most cases, the ancestors of the petitioners and in some cases, the petitioners had received the payment of compensation for the acquisition of their respective lands. Some of them have received enhanced compensation pursuant to an award passed by the competent forum/Court, when the matter was referred to under Section 18 Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 15/27 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . As an illustration, the father of petitioner no.1, namely, Radha Mohan Thakur received enhanced compensation vide LA. Case No. 36 of 1978 and L.A. Case No. 37 of 1978. Learned Advocate General further submits that some of the persons similarly situated have tried to reopen the land acquisition proceeding earlier before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing CWJC No. 77 of 2014 titled as Kripa Shanker Prasad Thakur vs the State of Bihar and Ors. In the said case, prayer was made to the State to return the agricultural lands which were acquired by the State for the said Tirhut Canal Project/Gandak Irrigation and Power Project on the ground that possession over the land has never been taken by the government and terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013'), the proceeding would lapse and "the land acquired having never been put to use till date, for which it was acquired, there was no necessity for acquisition and as such, the land must be restored to the petitioner". In the said writ petition, the Hon'ble Court has rejected all the issues relating to possession, payment of compensation, and non-user, therefore, rejected the said writ petition with a reasoned order. Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 16/27

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in another case CWJC No. 4075 of 2017, titled as Gonu Prasad vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. , the same question has been raised, i.e. Tirhut Canal Project/Gandak Irrigation and Power Project for which land was acquired in the year 1973-74 have lapsed due to the reason that the possession of the land is still with the petitioners as State Government did not take physical possession of the land and also in the light of the enactment of the Act of 2013, the earlier acquisition proceeding should be declared void. The said writ petition was also dismissed holding that possession of the land was taken by the competent authority and handed over to the Executive Engineer of Tirhut Canal Project/Gandak Project. Once the acquisition proceeding is completed after taking over possession by the competent authority and payment of compensation to the land owner, the acquired land is vested in the State in view of Section 16 of the Old Act and the State is free to utilize the said land after removing the unauthorized person from the possession of the same, if needed.

16. In addition to that, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court decided on 6th of March, Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 17/27 2020 in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9036 and 9038 of 2016 ( Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors. ) in which the applicability of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 has been answered. According to which, it has been held that a time- barred claim does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of the mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or the mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of Court to invalidate acquisition.

17. Learned Advocate General further submits that in the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have not denied the fact that the compensation amount has not been paid to them, rather the counsel for the petitioners has raised the grievances that in the said area, consolidation proceeding was initiated and due to consolidation proceeding, the lands in question have been consolidated as new Chak Khata and for some of the lands new Chak Khata physical possession have never been taken; and some of the land have been soled through registeed sale deed after allotment of new Chak Khata and rent receipt were generated in the name of the purchasers. In this background, the learned Advocate General submits that at the time of passing of an award, under the land acquisition Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 18/27 proceeding of the acquired land, none of the petitioners or their ancestors had raised any objection.

18. According to the State, consolidation operation was initiated in some areas on 28.12.1957 and in some areas on 09.09.1959, and the said consolidation operation was completed on 13.012.1979 (Annexure -6 series). He conclusively submits that the acquisition have been completed much before the final publication of the consolidation proceeding and it will have no bar on acquisition already made, particularly when the possession taken, award published and award has been received by most of the land owners. No objections had ever been raised by the petitioners or their ancestors during consolidation proceedings and now after lapse of about 45-50 years, they are raising question with mala fide intention.

19. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the case of Santosh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2013) 15 SCC 563 and submitted that in the said case, it has been held that there was no justification for entertaining the acquisition proceeding after 35 years of acquisition.

19.1 He further placed reliance on the case of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited Vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 19/27 Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao and Others. reported in (2012) 12 SCC 797 in which it has been held that once an award has been passed and possession has been taken, the land vests in the State and there is no lapse under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.

20. He further submits that in the present case, admittedly, the land acquisition proceeding was completed in the year 1974, preparation of award, payment of compensation, and the possession of land has been taken. As such, both the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed.

21. After going through the pleadings of the parties and hearing the arguments, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are as follows;

(i) whether the petitioners are entitled to continue on possession over the said land which has already been acquired in the year 1974, award published, payment received and some of them have received compensation after reference under Section 18 of the old Act on the ground that petitioners are in actual physical possession, some of them have created sale deeds for the said land and rent receipts were issued after sale deed by the State authorities themselves, shall create any right in favour of the petitioners ?;

Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 20/27

(ii) whether the Act of 2013 creates any hindrance for the respondent-State and provides any right to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case ? ; and

(iii) whether any rights carrying adverse possession developed in favour of the petitioners as claimed by the petitioners in their writ petition in the present facts and circumstances of the case ?

22. The admitted position of this case is that the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of construction of Tirhut Canal Project/Gandak Irrigation and Power Project under different phases. It also transpires that the acquisition proceeding for the lands in question was initiated in the year 1973-74 by virtue of notification for acquisition dated 31.01.1973. Declaration of the acquisition was made on 04.09.1973 and published on Page No2052-54 in Bihar Gazette dated 05.12.1973 and the awards were prepared on 13.07.1974, the land was acquired, possession was taken on 13.08.1974. All raiyatis were paid full compensation in the month of July

-August, 1974 and some of them have received enhanced compensation pursuant to an award passed by the competent Court when the matter was refereed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the question of returning of land Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 21/27 for the said project has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Kripa Shankar Prasad Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar vide order dated 25.03.2014 passed in CWJC No. 77 of 2014 against which no appeal has been preferred and, subsequently, the question of initiation of fresh proceeding and taking over of the possession of the land under acquisition has also been decided vide order dated 06.09.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4075 of 2017 titled as Gonu Prasad vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. against which no appeal has been preferred.

23. It is true that the said two writ petitions decided by this Hon'ble Court have not been filed by the present petitioners, but it is also true that the legal questions involved in those cases were identical to that of the present case since lands for Tirhut Canal Project/Gandak Irrigation and Power Project were in question.

24. On the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the sale deeds have been created and, subsequently, rents have been paid to the State Government and rent receipts have been issued whereas in some cases, the land possession certificates have been issued from the State officials for those lands in favour of the petitioners from whom the land has been taken or in favour of the purchasers as in the reply to Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 22/27 the counter affidavit, the petitioners of CWJC No. 9409 of 2022 has attached Annexure-6 by which it has been shown that after acquisition operation of lands has been sold to other persons and rent receipts were also issued to the new purchasers. In this regard, one case decided by Hon'ble the Apex Court is quite relevant. The 3-Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 and furtheron in the case of C. S. Gopalakrishnan ETC. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others. reported in (2023) 7 S.C.R. 939, which held as follows :-

25. Hence, the subsequent purchase of land by sale transaction which was already acquired is void and would be ineffective and shall not create any right in favour of the subsequent purchaser, rather it would be profoundly unfair and unjust and in violation of the law. Therefore, in that view of the matter, any person who purchased the land which was subject to acquisition even by virtue of a registered sale deed followed by the issuance of rent receipts or obtainment of a land possession certificate of those lands, whose title had already been transferred to the State by acquisition, is basically a dishonest step, and this Court shall not permit to grant recognize to such steps. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted, and are therefore rejected on the supra grounds.

26. So far as the effect of consolidation proceeding is concerned, in this regard, it had been held that during the pendency of consolidation proceeding, itself, the land acquisition proceedings had been completed, i.e. in the year 1973-74 and in a few cases, up to 1977, whereas consolidation proceeding continued upto year 1979. The petitioners, if have Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 25/27 had any claim, ought to raise objection in the consolidation proceeding itself, but by making false representation before the consolidation officials and obtaining Chak Khata, creation of rent receipt and obtainment of land possession certificate in their names by suppressing the fact from the consolidation and revenue officials that their lands were the subject matter of the land acquisition proceeding and had already been acquired by the government shall also be treated as dishonest steps on the part of the petitioners and cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. Therefore, in this view of the matter, this Court holds that the grounds raised by petitioners on the basis of the consolidation proceeding are not acceptable and are hereby rejected.

27. So far as the question of continuation in possession over the land over which the petitioners claim to have been staying for more than 50 years and that whether adverse possession is in their favour, are concerned, this Court is raising the provisions of Section 16 of the old Act and states that once the acquisition process had started with notification for acquisition followed by the declaration of the acquisition, followed by preparation of award, and thus followed by possession of acquired land for which payment of compensation amount had been completed in between the year 1973-74, there Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 26/27 is absolutely no title or possession in favour of the petitioners. In the present case, the acquisition was completed in July -August 1974, but due to various reasons, the project could not be started. Neither the land is a movable item that can be moved from one place to another nor it is possible for the State to segregate the acquired portion and always guard it.

28. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the original raiyat must not have to re-enter into possession as the possession of the State is in the nature of of eminent domain. The properties have been absolutely vested in the State and the petitioners or nearby persons using the land cannot be said to be adversely taken rather, in my opinion, it is virtually treated to be the permissive possession. Once the permissive possession is there, the question of adverse possession shall never arise in law. Therefore, the State is free to take its own land for the purpose for which it has been acquired or for any other purpose(s).

29. In view of the finding of the constitution Bench Judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Sharma (supra), there is no question for any right to be available to the petitioners.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10637 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023 27/27

30. This Court also holds that it is not proper on the part of the petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceeding or claim possession on the ground of adverse possession. Transfer of lands were taken from them in 1974. After lapse of 50 years of acquisition, creating hurdle in an important project which is of public importance, on frivolous grounds, which are basically non-existent ground in the eye of law, are not proper being honest citizens.

31 Hence, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/-