Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to SC-23 for the State.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in compliance of the order dated 14.11.2024, a counter affidavit duly sworn by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura has been filed wherein the Collector has given his reply by incorporating the direction as contained in the order dated 14.11.2024.

3. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that since the Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(4) dt.19-12-2024 2/6 land of the petitioners was released from the ceiling proceedings as such the petitioners become entitled for compensation in terms of the LA Act, 1894 and not under the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1979 i.e. when the land was under

4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that copy of the counter affidavit has been served on him today in the Court but then draws the attention of the Court to para 55 of the counter affidavit to submit that the stand of the Collector at para 55 and 55(c) of the counter affidavit is dichotomic, it has been pleaded at para 55 of the counter affidavit that petitioners can pursue relief in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Judge or upon withdrawal of the same is entitled for compensation under the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1979 at the rate specified at the time of the acquisition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that how such pleading has been made in the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that the compensation for the land in question was determined under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961 in terms of the Land Acquisition Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(4) dt.19-12-2024 3/6 (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1979 as such the case could not have been referred to the learned Sub-Judge under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 which gave rise to Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 2008.

6. Learned counsel submits that no doubt the said reference was made by the Collector on the application of the petitioners but then the issue is that if petitioners had filed an application seeking reference in breach of the law, whether the Collector could have referred the case under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 when the compensation of the land in question was determined under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961. It is further submitted that at para 55(c) of the counter affidavit, it has been pleaded that after the land was released from the ceiling proceedings, the nature of land becomes raiyati and in the event of acquisition the compensation can be granted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961, hence, the pleadings at para 55 and 55(c) of the counter affidavit is dichotomic.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that it appears that the Collector either has not understood the law in its correct perspective or even after understanding the law in its correct perspective has not come out with the correct facts Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(4) dt.19-12-2024 4/6 though it has been fairly submitted by the learned State Counsel that once the land in question was released from the ceiling proceedings, the compensation had to be determined in terms of the LA Act, 1894 but then it is submitted that a fresh award was required to be prepared under the LA Act, 1894 .

8. On query of the Court from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that whether any fresh award was prepared in terms of the LA Act, 1894 or not, the learned State Counsel submits that he will require further instruction in the matter as it has been pleaded at para 55(c) of the counter affidavit that after the land was released from the ceiling proceedings, the nature of the land becomes raiyati and in the event of acquisition the compensation can be granted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at this stage submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the land of the petitioners was released from the ceiling proceedings in the year 2002, after the lands were released from the ceiling proceedings it became raiyati land of the petitioners but then the land remained acquired as such the authorities after the land being released in the year Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(4) dt.19-12-2024 5/6 2002 were required to prepare an award afresh, in terms of the LA Act, 1894 but then no steps in between 2002 to 2013 were taken for preparing a fresh award with respect to the land in question. It is further submitted that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 came in force on 27th September, 2013 and the fresh award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 till date was not prepared as such the petitioners now are entitled for compensation of their acquired land in terms of the Act of 2013.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also submits that a reply to the counter affidavit shall be filed.

11. Put up this case on 24.01.2024 as part heard within top ten cases.

12. In the meantime, the learned State Counsel shall also file his supplementary counter affidavit duly sworn by the Collector. The supplementary counter affidavit shall clearly record as to whether fresh award in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was prepared or not before 27.09.2013 and if prepared whether compensation was given to the petitioners or not and if not prepared why?

Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(4) dt.19-12-2024 6/6

13. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/-