Dilip Kumar Gupta @ Dilip Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the State.

The writ petitioner-appellant is aggrieved by the

judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed in CWJC No. 15301/2013, by

which the learned single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the Writ

Application as against the notification dated 14.05.2010 issued under

Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(in short, ''the Act'') issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary of

the Government, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of

Bihar, Patna and further refused to interfere with the declaration made

under Section 6 of the Act by the notification dated 15.06.2010.

The learned single Judge found that both the

notifications were further followed by a Gazette Notification as

required under Section 6 of the Act and thereafter a notice dated

18.02.2013 under Section 12(2) of the Act was also issued to the

petitioner under the signature of the Collector informing him that an

award under Section 11 of the Act has already been prepared for the

land in question for a sum of Rs. 53,76,842.15. The petitioner-

appellant was called upon to appear with the relevant documents to

receive the award amount. It is at this stage only when the petitioner

moved this Court challenging the notifications and not the award.

Before the learned single Judge as well as before us in

Appeal, the entire contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

moves around the applicability of Section 17(4) of the Act

questioning its correctness as, according to the learned counsel, the

notification was issued under the emergency provision of the Act

without there being any application of mind. The contention is that the

petitioner, who has a valuable right under Section 5A of the Act, has

been divested of his right to be heard prior to notifying the land in

question under the emergency provision.

It appears that the learned single Judge in course of

hearing of the Writ Application called for the entire records of the

land acquisition proceedings and from the records the learned single

Judge was satisfied that upon a requisition having been made by the

Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur for acquisition of a parcel of land

for construction of a building for Akbar Nagar Police Station, the

notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was

issued followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is a

matter of record and not disputed that these notifications and

declaration were issued in the gazette and the newspaper as well. It is

also not in dispute that the petitioner was served with a notice under

Section 12(2) of the Act calling upon him to produce his right and title

on the land and to receive the award amount, as stated above.

On behalf of the petitioner-appellant, heavy reliance has

been placed on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the

case of Darshan Lal Nagpal Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi &

Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 327. The learned single Judge has

discussed the said judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and even

another judgment on the subject in the case of Bihar State Housing

Board Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2003(4) PLJR (SC)

161, has been considered in detail by the learned single Judge. It is

only upon the consideration of the entire materials and having found

that an award under Section 11A of the Act has been prepared within

the statutory period of two years in terms of the provisions of the Act,

the learned single Judge was of the view that no interference is

required at this stage and, if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the

quantum of the award amount determined by the Collector, he shall be

at liberty to invoke the remedy available under the law for

enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has once again placed

before us the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of

Darshan Lal Nagpal (Supra) and has argued that the question as to

justification to invoke emergency provision under Section 17(4) of the

Act need to be considered at this stage because it relates to

dispensation with the right of hearing conferred upon the petitioner

under the provisions of the Act. This is the only point argued before

us for purpose of assailing the notification and the declaration.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the records as also went through the judgment of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal (Supra). Apart

from what has been held by the learned single Judge, while agreeing

with the same we would also add that the judgment rendered by the

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal (Supra)

was in a somehow different fact-situation inasmuch as in that case the

notification issued under the emergency provision was challenged

immediately without wasting any time and the land involved under

the said acquisition was more than 80 Bighas. In the present case, the

distinguishing feature of the case of the petitioner-appellant is that

while the notification and the declaration were published in the

gazette and the newspaper on 14.06.2010 and 15.06.2010 respectively

and the award was also prepared within a period of two years there-

from, the petitioner-appellant did not choose to challenge the

notification and remained contented with the action of the government

in the matter of acquisition of the land measuring approx. 1.5 acre

under the emergency provision.

It is well settled in law and by judicial pronouncements

that a delay in approaching the court may render the petitioner

disentitled for the relief prayed for if he approaches the court at a

belated stage. What will be the delay and the period which would

render the petitioner disentitled for the relief will depend upon the

facts of each case. In the present case, we are convinced that the

petitioner-appellant remained contented with the notification and

declaration for a period over three years and it is only after the notice

under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to him calling upon him to

receive the award amount he moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction,

but again without challenging the award. The delay in the present case

is such that it would disentitle the petitioner - appellant from

challenging the notification or declaration made in the year 2010.

In our view the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme

Court in Darshan Lal Nagpal (Supra) is distinguishable and would

not be helping the petitioner-appellant. We are of the considered

opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the

learned single Judge.

The Appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.