AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
122 paragraphs · 6,213 wordsSujit Narayan Prasad, J
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s):
“That this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of public notice issued vide letter no. 12002 dated 3.12.2025 (Annexure-5) with the signature of Respondent No.5, so far it relates to the petitioners, as the Respondent No.5 pasted the notice on the house of the petitioners, (constructed in the year 1956-57 over the land of mouza-Morhabadi, Thana no.192, Khata No.3, Plot No. 1694, Sub-Plot No. 1694 A, Area 33 decimal) and directed to vacate the land after removing their house, treating the same has been constructed over the land belongs to RIIMS.”
The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, are as under:
It is the case of the writ petitioners that Hari Shankar Singh had purchased the land of mouza-Morahbadi, Thana No-192, Khata No.3, Plot no.1694, Sub-plot No.1694 A, Area 33 decimal from Babu Nervdeshwar Prasad Singh by virtue of registered sale deed no.1825 entered in Book No-1, Volume No 16, Pg No 416-418, year 1955 and gained peaceful possession of the same. The name of Hari Shankar Singh has been recorded in the revenue record as jamabandi raiyat at pg. no.56, volume no.4 and was continuously paying rent for which rent receipts were issued as would evident from rent receipt No.0984440866 dated 29.07.2019 upto the year 2019-2020.
Hari Shankar Singh had constructed the house over the abovementioned land in the year 1956-57 and started to reside there with his family and the said house was named as "Kailash Kothi".
On the requisition for acquisition of 1.20 acres of land at village Morahbadi in District Ranchi, (which includes the land of the petitioners) by the executive engineer, P.W.D. Ranchi Construction division II, a Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 1965-66 was instituted in the Court of Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. On the objection of Hari Shankar Singh, the land of the petitioners was excluded from the acquisition as would be evident from order dated 18.07.1966 passed in case no.2 of 1965-66.
The said Hari Shankar Singh died leaving behind his two sons and one daughter namely Shri Ram Kumar Singh, Shrimati Savita Singh and Shri Sachidanand Singh in the family. Settlement of the aforesaid land came in the share of Shri Sachidanand Singh, who is the husband of petitioner no.3 and father of petitioner nos.1, 2 and performa respondent no.6.
Shri Sachidanand Singh, Son of Late Hari Shankar Singh appointed petitioner no.3 as his Attorney through a registered Power of Attorney which has been entered in book no IV, Volume No -7, Pg 437 to 446, Serial No. 5191, Document no -413 dated 18.04.2002 in the office of District Sub -Registrar, Ranchi.
Shri Sachidanand Singh is suffering from Intellectual Disability for which Benefits Certificate of Intellectual Disability of Shri Sachidanand Singh has been issued by RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi vide letter no C-10331 dated 21.10.2021 was issued. On the basis of the said certificate dated 21.10.2021 petitioner no.3 has been appointed as legal guardian of Shri Sachidanand Singh for which Certificate of Appointment of Legal Guardian issued with the signature of Respondent No-2 by the National Trust for the welfare of persons with autism, cerebral palsy as would be evident from Certificate no.215475740696732 dated 29.10.2021.
Shri Sachidanand Singh and Rajkumari Devi (petitioner No.3) are having three daughters namely Khusboo Singh, (petitioner no.1), Priyanka Kumari (performa respondent no.6 and Chanchal Singh (petitioner no.2). Petitioner no.3 transferred 8.25 decimal out of 33 decimal of the abovementioned land to petitioner no.1 by registered deed no.2571 dated 02.04.2018. The said land has been mutated on 17.01.2020 in the name of petitioner no.1 vide mutation case no.1858/R27-2019-2020 for which online correction slip has been issued with the digital signature of Respondent no.3.
The petitioner no.3 transferred 8.25 decimal out of 33 decimal of the abovementioned l and to petitioner no.2 by registered deed no.2141 dated 19.03.2018. The said land has been mutated on 17.01.2020 in the name of petitioner no.2 vide mutation case no.1857/R27-2019-2020 for which online correction slip has been issued with the digital signature of Respondent no.3.
Petitioner no.3 transferred 8.25 decimal out of 33 decimal of the above mentioned land to performa respondent no.6 by registered deed no 2869/2603 dated 05.04.2018 which has been entered in book no.1, Vol No-261 pg. no 343 to 392 in the Office of District Sub Registrar Ranchi.
It is the specific case of the petitioners that from the aforesaid facts it is evident that the petitioners and their family members are the lawful absolute owner of the aforesaid land and the residential house having indefeasible right, title, interest and possession thereon. It is also the case of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners were not acquired by the state government for RIMS, as such, the petitioners have not encroached any portion of the land which belongs to the RIIMS.
The Circle Officer, Bargain i.e. Respondent no.5 issued a public notice vide letter no.2002 dated 03.12.2025 and pasted the same in the house of the petitioners, and directed them to remove their house and handover the peaceful possession of the land to the RIMS treating the house of the petitioners to have been constructed over the land of RIMS.
The petitioners have submitted representation to the respondent no.3 which has been duly received on 04.12.2025, in which they have categorically mentioned that the land of the petitioners does not belong to the RIMS and requested to correct the records. Similar application has been given by the petitioners to the respondent no.5 which has duly been received in his office on 05.12.2025 but the same has not been considered.
The background for which the instant writ petition has been filed is the order passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2025 and analogous cases dated 03.12.2025.
The relief has been sought for on the ground that the petitioners are claiming to the valid owner of the landed property in question, as such, submission has been made on the basis of the documents appended in the writ petition, i.e., rent receipts, copy of the order dated 18.07.1966 passed in Case No.2 of 1965-66 excluding the land of the petitioners from acquisition as also the correction slips.
This Court, on the very first day, heard and has adjourned the matter by providing opportunity to the petitioners to establish the title which is being claimed vis-à-vis the State and has also directed to substantiate it on the basis of the documents that the land has already been acquired or not.
The entire record relating to the land acquisition has also been called for. The Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition Officer, Circle Officer of the concerned circle have demonstrated before this Court that the land has been acquired to the extent of 6.84 acres in Mouza Morabadi, Plot No.1694. The entire map has also been placed showing the acquisition of the land for the establishment of Rajendra Institute of Medical College and Hospital (now RIMS).
This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners has directed the learned State counsel to file response and in pursuance thereof, response has been filed wherein the ground has been taken in substantiating the factum of acquisition of land to the extent of 6.84 acres.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted with the assistance of the District Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer that the entire area of 6.84 acres has been acquired for which compensation has also been paid in favour of Bigal Singh, Sripati Singh, Suraj Nath Prasad, Harihar Oraon, Jitan Wabodhan and Budhuwa Munda in the year 1967 itslef.
It has been submitted that the land in question has been acquired to the extent of 6.84 acres and the compensation since has been paid, as such, it cannot be disputed and it is not in dispute that the land in question has not been acquired.
It has been further contended that the order dated 18.07.1966 passed in Case No. 2 of 1965-66 is completely baseless and the release of 0.33 acres of land from the fold of acquisition is also having no force. Further, the name of Hari Shankar Singh has been mutated for the first time in the year 1972-73 vide mutation case No. 496 R 27/72-73 as also it has been contended that the said land in question is in the middle of the acquired land of RIMS and not at the edge of the said plot which would be evident from the village map itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the submission made by the learned State counsel, has submitted that no amount of compensation has been received since the person who is shown to have received the amount of compensation is in no way related to the predecessor in interest or the vendor from whom the landed property has been purchased by the petitioners herein.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the record pertaining to receipt of compensation amount which has also been brought on record by way of filing affidavit on behalf of the State and the map along with the order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 76 of 1964-65.
The case of the petitioners is that out of the total area of 0.93 acres, 0.33 acres of land has been excluded from the fold of acquisition of land as would be evident from the order dated 18.07.1966.
The aforesaid fact has seriously been disputed by the State. It is contended that even while accepting the said order to be correct but the same is of no assistance to the petitioners since reference in the said document itself has been made that it is the Deputy Commissioner who has excluded 0.33 acres of land from the fold of acquisition in connection with L.A. Case No. 2 of 1965-66 who indisputably has got no jurisdiction to exclude the part of the land as the jurisdiction lies only with the appropriate Government, i.e., the State.
This Court, in order to appreciate the argument, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Section 4, 5, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The same are being reproduced as under:
“4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon. -- (1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice , being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)].
(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workman, -
to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil;
to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose;
to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon;
to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and,
where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle;
Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.
Payment for damage. - The officer so authorized shall at the time of such entry pay or tender payment for all necessary damaged to be done as aforesaid, and, in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector or other chief revenue officer of the district, and such decision shall be final.
5A. Hearing of objections. - (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, subsection (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section
(1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government]. The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.]
Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. - (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2)];
[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:]
Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.
[Explanation 1. - In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.]
(2) [Every declaration] shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state] the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which It is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the [appropriate Government] may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.”
This Court has also gone through the provision as provided under Rule 18 of the Executive Instruction as provided in the Bihar Land Acquisition Manual wherefrom it is also evident that it is the appropriate government which alone is empowered to exclude the land which has been proposed to be acquired or to take decision in the process of acquisition while deciding the objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. For ready reference, said rule is being referred as under:
“18. Procedure to be followed in dealing with objection filed under section 5-A.—The objections filed under section 5-A shall on receipt be entered in a volume of Register 8 of miscellaneous cases, prescribed at page 17 of Register and Return Manual, 1932. On expiry of the statutory period of 30 days allowed for filing objections, the Collector shall issue notices on the persons, who have filed objections within the time limit, fixing a date, time and place for the hearing of the objections. In the cases of objections filed jointly by number of persons the notice shall be served on the first or the principal objector. The objectors should be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their objections, if they desire to do so. Information should also be given to the local officers of the Government department concerned (e.g., the Agricultural Department, the Public Works Department, etc.) the local representative of the railway or to the local body or company at whose instance the notification under section 4 has been published, so that they may be represented at the hearing of the objections. When dealing with these objections, the Collector shall have in view the instructions given in paragraph 5 above.
On finishing the enquiry, the Collector shall forward the objection received by him together with the record of his proceedings, in original, to Government in the Revenue Department. The Revenue Secretary will take the orders of the Hon’ble Minister in charge of the Administrative Department for which the land is being acquired, unless the objection is one which he considers that he can dispose of under his own authority, when the orders of Government have been passed on the objections, they shall be communicated by the Revenue Department to the administrative department concerned and to the Collector, the record of the case being returned at the same time.
If no objection is received within the statutory period of thirty days, the Collector shall report the fact to Government in the Revenue Department. On receipt of the intimation that no objection has been received the administrative department of Government will be informed to that effect by the Revenue Department.”
Thus, it is evident from the provision of Section 4 that the process for acquisition of land for the public purpose is to be initiated by a declaration to be made under Section 4 by the appropriate government. The provision of Section 5-A provides a remedy to the land owner to file objection for its consideration by the Collector for the purpose of making recommendation to the appropriate Government even for the purpose of exclusion of the part of the land or the entire land from the fold of acquisition.
We may refer herein to the definition of “appropriate government” as has been defined under Section 3(ee) of the Act, 1894 which stipulates that the expression “appropriate Government” means, in relating to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union, the Central Government, and, in relation to acquisition of land for any other purposes, the State Government.
The relevance of word “appropriate government” is that it has direct bearing for appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, based upon the document upon which the writ petitioners are relying, i.e., order passed by the land acquisition officer wherein the reference of the exclusion of 0.33 acres of land has been made and based upon which the petitioners are claiming that the land in question has not been acquired.
Admittedly, the petitioners have not come out with any order passed by the appropriate government rather it is the Deputy Commissioner who has excluded the land to the extent of 0.33 acres in respect of the petitioners along with the land of one another person, namely, B.D. Arora. In support of aforesaid contention, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 18.07.1966 in L.A. Case No. 2 of 1965-66 has been appended wherein the reference of the release of the land from acquisition by the Deputy Commissioner has been taken note. Since the photocopy of the original order has been annexed which is illegible, as such, the typed copy of the said order has also been annexed which is being reproduced as under:
“In the Court of the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi.
Case No. 2 of 65-66
Acquisition of 0.60 acres of Land at village.
Morahbadi in Dist. Ranchi.
ORDER SHEET
Serial Number Order and Signature Note of action taken on Order
And date of Order
1 2 3
18.7.66 Requisition for acquisition of 1.20 acres of land situated in village Morhabadi was filed by Executive Engineer, P.W.D Ranchi construction division II for 1.20 acres.
Objection petitions have been filed against this acquisition by
(1) Sri Hari Shankar Singh and (2) Shri Banwari Das Arora under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Heard the objections and representative of the R.O. Inspected the Site in their presence
It was urged on behalf of the objectors that this very land was not subject of acquisition in a earlier proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. Out on their objection the then Deputy Commissioner released the land from the acquisition. This was admitted by the R.O. and was confirmed by the Land Acquisition Officer
It was urged in behalf on the R.O. that (illegible)
that it is very essential to acquire this portion of the land in order to bring continuity in the premises of the Medical College. It was also stated that if this area is not acquired it would be difficult to bring development in the Medical College premises. I wanted to see the Plan of development or construction in order to find out if it was absolutely necessary to have this land. No such plan was brought before me
On this portion, it was found that a good pucca house with small orchard and good well of Shri Hari Sharkar Singh is situated the value of which can be roughly estimated to Rs.30,000/-
This portion if acquired will mean more expenditure to state and inconvenience to this objector. This land is fit to be excluded from the acquisition in the best interest of all concerned.
So far the objection of Sri Arora is concerned I found on inspection that the land is still part and boundary wall only has been given on three sides. It is contended on behalf of Sri Arora that the land has been purchased by him for starting industry. Though the land was purchased almost few years back nothing has been done on the land except the above mentioned boundary wall boundary wall, to show land was really either to start the industry. The place is also not considered to be suitable for the industry being adjacent to Medical College Premises. He however requested for starting some land for his house. The purpose of the house can be well served if .33 acres of land out of .93 acres is excluded from the acquisition.
Because of the reasons given above the land is details of which are given below is excluded from the acquisition
Name of the Owner Land
Shri Hari Shankar Singh land with house etc. being 0.33 acres
Sri B.D Arora 0.33 acres out of 93 from waste
extending toward north upto the village road
Action for acquisition of the remaining land be taken by Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with law.
Sd/- Illegible
18.7.66
Addl. Collector, Ranchi
Dictated and corrected
by me
18.7.66 Compared by Ref. No. 4726 words 600
Typed by Sd/- Illegible
MJ/8/12
It is evident from the aforesaid order that the land acquisition officer has only mentioned about the fact of the release of the land in question from the fold of acquisition by the Deputy Commissioner but no order as such has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioners and the same is also not available in the entire record. This also suggests and rather clarifies the element of connivance of the parties.
It is evident from the provision of Section 4 read along with Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 that it is the decision of the appropriate government for the purpose of making a declaration to acquire the land for the public purpose, and as such, it is the appropriate government who is to take decision based upon the need or on the basis of the consideration of objection of one or the other land owners for exclusion of the land or part of it which has been declared to be acquired. Therefore, it is the appropriate government who alone is the competent authority as per the provision of Section 4 read along with Section 5-A to take final decision with respect to the exclusion of part of the land.
But, herein, it is the Deputy Commissioner who has taken final decision excluding the land in question from the purview of the acquisition, which according to the considered view of this Court cannot be said to be just and proper rather it is contrary to the statutory mandate on the basis of the principle that a thing is to be done as provided under the statute then the same has to be done in the manner so laid down or not at all. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors., reported in AIR (1964) SC 358, wherein it has been held at paragraph-8 which is as under:
“....its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted....”
Reference is also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babu Verghese and Ors. vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422, wherein it has been held at paragraphs 31 & 32 as under:
“31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under:
“[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”
This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three judge bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a statutory principle of administrative law.”
Reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court also needs to be made in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633, wherein it has been held at paragraph 27 as under:
“..... it is a normal rule of consideration that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself....”
Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 368, wherein it has been held at paragraph 26 as under:
“....it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed.....”
Reference has also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Direction ESIC Hyderabad & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.5138-40/2007), reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690, wherein it has been held at paragraph 14 as under:
“14. As per the scheme of the Act, the appropriate Government alone could grant or refuse exemption. When the statute prescribed the procedure for grant or refusal of exemption from the operation of the Act, it is to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, it was held that: (SCC p. 378, para 26)
26.... it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.”
The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to bring on record any document that can be said to be issued by the appropriate government for excluding 0.33 acres of land rather has totally relied upon the order dated 18.07.1966 passed by the Additional Collector based upon the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner.
The compensation has been shown to be paid with respect to 6.84 acres of land in favour of Bigal Singh, Sripati Singh, Suraj Nath Prasad, Harihar Oraon, Jitan Wabodhan and Budhuwa Munda in the year 1967 itself as is being claimed on behalf of the State.
The declaration which has been made under Section 4 to acquire the land in question has never been challenged on behalf of the petitioners save and except filing objection under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 but the said objection can also not be said to have attained finality in absence of any order passed by the appropriate government that is to be passed in consonance with the provision of Section 5A of the Act, 1894.
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the exclusion of the land by the Deputy Commissioner has been made by the incompetent authority and as such, the land in question in pursuance of the declaration as contained under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 since was required to be acquired but due to connivance of the parties and exceeding the jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner, it has been left to be acquired even though the land in question is in the midst of the acquired area as would be evident from the photocopy of the map. The extract of the map is being reproduced as under:
As the Deputy Commissioner has exceeded its jurisdiction and further since the jurisdiction goes to the root of the issue, as such, any decision taken by the authority having no jurisdiction will be nullity in the eyes of law and therefore, order of exclusion which has been made by the Deputy Commissioner is being held to be contrary to the provision of Section 5A of the Act, 1894 and hence, the same is held to be nullity in the eyes of law. As such, the ground which has been taken that the land has been excluded from acquisition has no force in the eyes of law and is accordingly rejected.
We have also considered the entire map and from its perusal, the land in question, i.e., Plot No. 1694, is located in the midst of the acquired land within the precincts of RIMS which also clarifies that the land in question has been duly acquired for the RIMS.
Even the plea of the petitioners that the land in question has been excluded by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 cannot be accepted in view of the statutory provision as contained under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 which makes it absolutely clear that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector has no jurisdiction to exclude the declared land for acquisition in view of the declaration made under Section 4 rather the Deputy Commissioner/Collector is only authorized to give recommendation which is to be finally accepted by the appropriate government as discussed above.
Further, the writ petitioners have failed to produce any document showing therein that the Appropriate Government has excluded the land in question rather it is the specific case of the petitioners that it is the Deputy Commissioner who has excluded the land from acquisition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy and it cannot be satisfied by going contrary to the statutory provision as provided under Section 4 read along with Section 5A of the Act, 1894 wherein reference of appropriate government has been given. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to impress upon the Court by referring Rule 18 of the Executive Instructions as provided in the Land Acquisition Manual but it is evident from the said rule that it is the appropriate government who is to exclude the land which has been proposed to be acquired or to take decision in the process of acquisition while deciding the objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894.
At this juncture, this Court based on the fact as stated hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs coupled with the fact of acquisition of land is of the firm view that the amount of compensation has been paid for the entire land, i.e., 6.84 acres, in favour of the persons concerned.
The area which has been referred in the chart (supra) specifically clarifies that the compensation for the entire land of 6.84 acres has been paid. The disbursement of compensation is also corroborated from the map showing the acquired land, i.e., plot no. 1694 is also shown in the midst of the total acquired land which has been acquired by way of acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case No. 76 of 1964-65.
This Court has considered the provision as under Section 4 read with Section 5A of the Act, 1894 which clarifies that the final decision is to be taken by the appropriate government for excluding any part of the land or whole of it which has been proposed to be acquired but here, in the present case, the land in question has not been excluded by the “Appropriate Government”.
This Court on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and on consideration of the fact that no order of exclusion by the appropriate government has been passed in respect to the exclusion of the land in question as also the amount of compensation has been paid for the entire land, is of the considered view that the instant writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
The interim order granted vide order dated 09.12.2025 stands vacated.