Krishna Kumar Singh And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification no. 15/D.L.A. Patna (N.H.W) 17/11 22125 dated 28.11.2011 which relates to village Chesi,

notification no. 15/D.L.A. Patna (N.H.W) 04/12 401/Patna dated 14.2.2012 which relates to village Pali, notification no. 15/D.L.A. Patna (N.H.W)

13/11 1660 Patna dated 15.9.2011 which relates to village Mamrejpur and also for quashing land acquisition proceeding in respect of lands of the

petitioners and also for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate a fresh acquisition proceeding and ensure the payment of acquired

lands of the petitioners in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (in short ‘Act, 2013’).

The claim of the petitioners is that lands of the petitioners of the aforesaid villages were acquired by the concerned authority in the year 2011 and

2012 vide several notifications but neither compensation amount was paid nor possession was taken and, therefore, the aforesaid acquisition

proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 in which it has specifically been pleaded that notifications for acquisition of lands were

made under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 13.2.2012 and 28.11.2011 in respect of the aforesaid villages and subsequently, award of village Pali was

notified in August, 2012 and similarly, award of village Chesi was notified in September, 2012. It has further been pleaded that rate of compensation

was calculated on the basis of the prevailing rate just before notification of section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but since compensation could not

be paid to the farmers of the aforesaid villages, respondents have already decided to make payment of compensation in accordance with Act, 2013

taking new multiplying factor i.e. four times more than previous rate calculated.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, having relied upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this court, submitted

that award of the aforesaid villages , admittedly, was prepared in the year 2012 and, therefore, five years have already elapsed and, therefore, in the

aforesaid circumstances, section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is applicable in the present case but I am not at all convinced with the aforesaid submissions

because for application of section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, pre-requisite condition is that award should be prepared five years prior to commencement

of the Act, 2013 and hence, in my opinion, section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not applicable in this case. Moreover, grievance of the petitioners is

covered under the proviso of the aforesaid section and the aforesaid fact has been admitted by respondent no.5 in the counter affidavit because

respondent no.5 has specifically pleaded that calculation of the compensation amount is being made in accordance with Act, 2013.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition stands disposed of. However, while calculating compensation amount in accordance

with Act, 2013, the concerned authority shall keep in mind letter no. 1342 dated 4.12.2015 (annexure 8 to the second supplementary affidavit) and

shall strictly proceed with the guideline given in the aforesaid letter while calculating compensation amount in respect of acquired lands of the

petitioners.