9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of 1959- 60 before the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh. The lands concerned in these cases were notified for acquisition in 1959 under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act under two different notifications. At about the same time, the Government also took action under S. 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with proceedings under s. 5A. Simultaneously notifications under s, 6 were also issued. Thereafter proceedings under ss. 9 and 11 were taken. When the acquisition proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, the Government withdrew from acquisition some of the lands earlier notified under ss. 4 and 6, Consequently the Land Acquisition Officer excluded the compensat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter, it was not competent for the Government to withdraw from acquisition any of the lands notified under s. 6. Alternatively it was contended that the Government became the full owner of those lands when the Collector caused a public notice to be given under s. 9(1) of the Act. Lastly it was contended that the lands in question had been actually taken possession of by the Collector under s. 17(1) of the Act and hence they vested in the Government. The Government of Bihar has denied all the above allegations. It denied that the Government took possession of the lands in question in 1954. It further denied that those lands had been taken possession of under s. 17(1). The Government denied the allegation of the appellant that it became ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requisition sent to the Land Acquisition Officer by the same officer on January 24, 1959 (Annexure M. The concerned Divisional Forest Officer was one Brijmohan Prasad. In the letter in question he stated : "The forest in the above villages are in possession of the Forest Department since sometime past. . In-the requisition again, he mentioned "The land was previously notified under s. 29(3) of the I.F.A. and it was demarcated and possession taken. Later on it was found that the land in question was raiyati, it was necessary to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act." In para 12 of that requisition, he further stated "it is already under possession and this is to be formally handed over immediately." T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to him under law if the Government had unlawfully taken possession of those lands. 'Me. question whether the Government had unlawfully taken possession of those la ads in 1954, as we shall presently see, is wholly irrelevant for the decision of these appeals. The next point that arises for decision is whether delivery of the lands notified for acquisition was taken under s. 17(1) as contended by the appellant. The Government becomes the owner of the lands notified for acquisition only when the Collector takes possession of those lands either under s. 16 or under s. 17(1). Both those provisions provide that when the Collector takes possession under those provisions, the lands notified for acquisition shall vest absolutely in the Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncumbrances. From this provision, it is plain that the Collector cannot take possession of the land in question unless the Government directs him to do so. The Government can direct him to do so only in cases of urgency. Even when the Government directs the Collector to take possession, lie cannot ,do so until expiration of 15 days from the publication of a notice under s. 9(1). There is no material on record to show that the Government had given to the Collector any direction under S. 17 (1 ); nor is there any material to show that the lands in question had been taken possession of by the Collector under s. 17(1'). It is true that in the ordersheet maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer, a note was made on October 17, 1959 : "Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned earlier, no material has been placed before the Court to show that action under s. 17(1) had been taken. It was next contended by Mr. Garg and Mr. A. K. Sen, that the expression "whenever the appropriate government so directs" in s. 17(1) refers to urgency and not to the taking of possession of the lands notified for acquisition. Their further contention was that no sooner the Government issued the notification under s. 1.7(4), the factum of urgency was established and hence on the expiration of the fifteen daYs from. the publication of notice under s.9 (1) the lands which were already in the possession of the Government vested in the Government. We are unable to accept this construction of s. 17(1). In our judgment s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
