Yoganand Mehta vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1704 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2623 of 2020
     ======================================================

1. Yoganand Mehta

2. Gulcharan Mehta @ Gulchu Mehta, Both Sons of Late Kusharu Mehta, Resident of Village-Goasi, P.S. K. Nagar, District-Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Collector, Purnea.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Purnea.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghiv Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Mr.Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AG Mr.Md.Khurshid Alam (AAG 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 09-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner

no. 2, namely, Gulcharan Mehta @ Gulchu Mehta died on

26.01.2020, and is survived by legal heirs namely, Kiran Devi

and Anila Mehta.

Shri Bipin Kumar, enters appearance on behalf of newly

added petitioner , namely, Kiran Devi and Anila Mehta.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

a) To quash the order dated 04.09.2019 passed Patna High Court CWJC No.2623 of 2020 dt.09-03-2022

by the Respondent No.3 whereby the objection raised under section 15(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the lands held by the petitioners have been acquired for the purpose of civil aviation situated contiguous to South of Military Aerodrome, Purnea, has been rejected without even mentioning the nature of the object.

b) During pendency of this writ petition the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from their lands."

Learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the

matter being heard by this Bench. They consent for the same

being heard today.

Sri Raghiv Ahsan, learned Senior counsel, invites our

attention to a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of

this Court rendered vide order dated 18.02.2020 passed in

CWJC No.24341 of 2019 titled as Vijay Mehta @ Bijal

Mehta and Ors. Versus the State of Bihar and another,

dealing with the very same issue, subject matter of the present

lis.

It is prayed that the present petition be also disposed of

in terms thereof.

Learned Advocate General states that the State would

have no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms of

the said order but, however, direction be issued to the parties to Patna High Court CWJC No.2623 of 2020 dt.09-03-2022

fully co-operate in the adjudicatory process, with a further

direction of early completion of such proceeding.

We notice that in Vijay Mehta (Supra), the petition

was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority

under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 to decide the objection petitions afresh,

in accordance with law. Order similar to the one impugned

herein, rejecting such an objection petition was quashed and set

aside.

We are informed that in the said case, pursuant to the

order of remand, the competent authority, after due approval,

has completed the acquisition proceedings.

We are of the view that similar approach needs to be

adopted in the present case, inasmuch as it is the case of the

petitioners that even their objection petition was disposed of

without dealing with the issues raised therein.

We notice that acquisition proceedings relate to

expansion of the airport at Purnia. The proceeding commenced

in the year 2013, for one reason or the other, be it on account of

pendency of the present petition or the interim orders passed

therein, the project stands inordinately delayed. Patna High Court CWJC No.2623 of 2020 dt.09-03-2022

There is no doubt that in law, petitioners have a right to

receive compensation which is just, fair and reasonable but it is

also the duty of the State to ensure that projects of vital

importance are not held up only on account of passing of

interim orders by various courts. Yes, Courts cannot be

obstructionist in any developmental activity, but then the State

also has to be vigilant. When an identical matter stood decided

in February, 2020 itself, application for hearing and disposal of

the instant petition, on similar lines could have been filed. It was

not done so. Order of interim injunction was never sought to be

modified.

We notice that the development of airport at Purina is

necessarily required in national interest for in the war of 1962,

the aerodrome at that place was utilized to its optimum utility.

As such, as jointly prayed for, we quash and set aside

the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Collector/Land

Acquisition Officer, rejecting the petitioners' objection petition

(Annexure-1).

Further direction is issued to the petitioners to make

themselves available in the office of respondent no.2, namely,

the Collector, Purnea on 14.03.2022 on which date, the parties

shall place on record not only a copy of this order, but also any Patna High Court CWJC No.2623 of 2020 dt.09-03-2022

material which they seek to rely upon. If the authorized

authority to adjudicate the petition is some other person then the

Collector shall ensure compliance of direction.

We direct respondent no. 2, namely, the District

Magistrate, Purnia to either himself or ensure the authorized

person to conclude the proceedings positively within a period of

45 days, unless, of course, the law mandates it to be done

otherwise. Any which way, it must be completed within the

prescribed time limit.

We also direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar

to ensure that all appropriate sanctions and approvals, if so

required, are accorded within a time bound period. Learned

Advocate General states that the order shall be communicated.

Needles to add, petitioners have a right to receive

compensation which is just, fair and reasonable in terms of the

decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Indore

Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others,

reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Sri Raghiv Ahsan, learned Senior counsel, states that the

petitioners shall fully co-operate and, if so asked, even prior to

the completion of the proceeding, subject to the outcome of the

adjudicatory process, even hand over vacant and peaceful Patna High Court CWJC No.2623 of 2020 dt.09-03-2022

possession of the land, should the need so arise for early

completion of the project. We fully acknowledge such a gesture

and appreciate the stand, which undoubtedly is in national

interest.

Liberty reserved to anyone of the parties to approach the

Court for reviving the instant petition, should the need so arise.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Interim order vacated.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

                                                 (Sanjay Karol, CJ)


                                                     ( S. Kumar, J)
Sanjay/-Ranjan
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          10.03.2022
Transmission Date       NA