9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the State action brings it into direct collision with Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The present case seems to us to be a concrete illustration of the State action taken under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, to be referred to as the Act ). What happened here is that while the Government of Bihar acquired a vast tract of land for construction of houses and allotment to the people belonging to the low and middle income groups but chose to exempt certain persons from the statutory action on purely unreasonable and illusory grounds. Fortunately, the chosen class comprised a very small number of persons whose lands consisted of a small proportion of the total acquired land. This now brings us to the consideration of the important facts of the case. A notification under s. 4 of the Act was issued by the Government of Bihar on 19.8.4 seeking to acquire 1034.94 acres of land in village Digha for the purpose of construction of houses by the Bihar State Housing Board wherein it was mentioned that the price or compensation for the acquired land was to be paid by the Housing Board and not by the State from its own funds. By virtue of the said notification objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violative of Art. 14 and therefore the entire notification was bad and without jurisdiction. In January, 1982, the amount of compensation was deposited by the State Housing Board with the Treasury which was followed by an Award given in respect of the acquired lands on 1.2.83. The totality of the facts and the dates stated above clearly show that the delay in finalising the compensation by the Collector was due to unforeseen circumstances and the appellants, therefore, cannot be heard to complain of the same because, as already indicated, this was due to stay orders passed by the Government and the courts on several representations. It is rather unfortunate that while the acquisition of land for a sound purpose was taken and necessary steps complied with, the acquisition fell into a rough weather raising serious controversies between the parties in dispute, putting forward various claims and objections, as a result of which the said housing scheme was delayed by more than 5-6 years. Indeed, if the Government would have been wiser and more alert by the time possession was taken. the object of building houses by the Housing Board of the State could have been accomplished long b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure except the one shown in the photograph which had been built by the Pandey families, has been disputed before us. It was, therefore, rightly argued by counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 9973/83 that the release of land in favour of the Pandey families was a pure and simple act of favouritism without there being any legal or constitutional justification for the same. The State also was not in a position either to rebut or support the release of the lands in question. We might also mention that although notice had been issued and served on the Pandey families yet they did not appear in this Court to support their claim. Hence, there does not appear to be any serious dispute between the parties that the order of release passed by the Government under s. 48 of the Act was non est as being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution The matter does not rest here but the counsel for the appellants further submitted before this Court to declare the entire acquisition of lands as unconstitutional even though a very small fraction of it was hit by the mischief of Art. 14. It was submitted that the entire tract of lands was acquired by one notification and once it is found tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so taken by the appellant before the authorities concerned that the public purpose mentioned in the notification was not specific enough and as such he was not able to file effective objections against the proposed acquisition. The case cited above has no application to the facts of the present case because it was never argued before the High Court that the acquisition was without any public purpose. It is, however, contended by both the parties that if at the time when the section 4 notification was issued an invidious distinction without any reasonable classification would have been made between the land acquired and the land of Pandey families so as to form an integral part of the entire acquisition, the entire notification would have been struck down. Here, we find that the release of land in favour of Pandey families came after three years of the initial notification and therefore it cannot invalidate the section 4 notification in its entirety. All that would happen is that the released portion would be deemed to be non est and in the eye of law the section 4 notification would be deemed to be a notification for the entire lands acquired, including the lands of Pandey fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
