IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 64 of 2008
( Lal Brajeshwar Nath Sahadeo Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors.
With
Civil Review No. 65 of 2008
(Santosh Mahto Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors.)
With
Civil Review No. 66 of 2008
Nepal Baitha Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors. )
....
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
......
For the petitioners : M/s Subhro Sanyal & Sunil Kr.Mahto
For the State : Mr.P.A.S.Pati,JC to A.G. &
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mehtha
For the H.E.C. : Mr.Abhay Kr.Mishra
.....
12/6.4.2010
These three review petitions have been filed against the judgment and
order dated 6.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 503 of 1007
alongwith LPA No. 504 of 2006 and LPA No. 505 of 2006.
All the aforesaid appeals were directed against a common judgment
and order passed in three writ petitions which had been heard collectively and
had been disposed of by a common order , against which these Review
petitions have been filed.
The petitioners had come up with a case that although the land
belonging to them had been acquired by the then State of Bihar in the year
1960, yet the land belonging to them should be ordered to be re-
conveyed/returned to them as according to the petitioners’ case, the
Government of Bihar has already taken a policy decision to return the land to
the original land owners.
It is an admitted position that a large tract of land had been
acquired in the year 1960 by the erstwhile State of Bihar for the benefit and use
of a Public Sector Undertaking namely M/s Heavy Engineering
Corporation(HEC in short) and while the Undertaking was set up on the land
acquired, the petitioners came up with a case that large area comprising
2555.71 decimals of land were lying unutilised. The petitioners, therefore, filed
three writ petitions separately before the learned Single Judge for return of the
2.
land to the petitioners, on the ground that the lands were lying unutilised as also
on the ground that the Government of Bihar had already taken a policy decision
to return or reconvey the unutilised land to its original owners which were
initially acquired for the purpose of use by HEC.
The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying
upon the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Government of
A.P. Vrs. Syed Akbar, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 558, wherein it has been held
that the lands acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all
encumbrances. In the same judgment, it was further held that the land acquired
for the public purpose, could be utilised for any other public purpose and it was
still further held that the acquired lands which were vested in the Government
free from all encumbrances, cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original
owners merely on the basis of an executive order.
It is on this premise that the writ petitions were filed for return/
reconveyance of the land but the same were dismissed. The petitioners
thereafter preferred three Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of
this Court, which also were dismissed by the judgment and order dated
6.11.2007, already indicated hereinbefore.
The petitioners thereafter preferred Special Leave Petitions before the
Supreme Court bearing S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 8395-8397 of 2008 vide Annexure-2
to the review petitions and it was contended before the Supreme Court by the
petitioners that although acquisition of the land had taken place , the
possession was not taken from them either by the State or the beneficiary i.e.
HEC. The Special Leave petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, granting
liberty to the petitioners to file an application for recall of the order for
considering whether the averment of the petitioners that the acquired land had
not been taken from them after acquisition, was correct or not and whether
compensation were also paid to the land owners. The petitioners thereafter did
not file any application for recall but have filed these three review petitions,
3.
wherein it has been asserted that the land which were lying unutilised , should
be reconveyed to the petitioners.
The review petitions obviously can be entertained only if there is an
error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be expected to investigate
or adjudicate whether the petitioners are still in occupation of the land in
question as it would clearly depend on a scrutiny of evidence which cannot be
permitted to be adduced by way of a review petition. However, even if it were
to be entertained to consider whether the averment of the petitioners to the
effect that they are still in possession of the lands which were acquired , it
cannot be overlooked that they have already received compensation, which
could not have been paid without delivery of possession to the State . Hence
the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench
vide the impugned judgment and order to the effect that acquisition could not be
reconveyed by virtue of an executive order on the plea that a policy decision
had been taken, is not erroneous in any manner. The view taken by the learned
Division Bench as also the learned Single Bench to the effect obviously implies
that if a policy decision, at all has been taken by the Government, the same
had to be incorporated in the form of a Government notification and unless a
notification to that effect is issued by the State , which is now the State of
Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the claim of the petitioners
for re-conveying the alleged unutilised land cannot be entertained.
Besides this, the averment of the petitioners before the Supreme Court
to the effect that the petitioners are still in possession of the land and had not
been paid compensation is also factually not sustainable . On the contrary,
counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the petitioners had
already received compensation and the land had also been taken over by the
State Government wherein the HEC for whom the acquisition had been made,
is in occupation and possession of the land after its acquisition. Thus, the
petitioners apparently did not make a correct statement before the learned
Judges of the Supreme Court to the effect that they are still in occupation and
4.
possession of the unutilised land, nor it was correct for them to assert that they
had not received any compensation, due to which liberty was granted to the
petitioners to file an application for recall of the order, which also was not done
but in lieu of the same , these review petitions have been filed.
These review petitions, therefore, are not fit to be entertained , in
absence of any factual or error apparent on the face of the record.
Even at the risk of repetition, we may record that the petitioners have
miserably failed to support their averments, which they had made before the
Supreme Court to the effect that they are in occupation and possession of the
unutilised land and they have also not stated before this Court that they have
not received compensation for the land which had been acquired .
However, counsel for the petitioners still insisted that at least some of
the petitioners are in occupation of the land without denying that they have
received compensation. In any case, it is not possible for this Court to hold a
factual enquiry as to whether some of the land holders who might not even be
the petitioners herein, are still in actual physical possession of the acquired land
which took place way back in the year 1960 as that would require adducing of
evidence which is not available on record and rightly so as the same could not
have been permitted under writ jurisdiction, much less while entertaining
review petitions.
Accordingly, all the review petitions are dismissed.
( Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
( Amareshwar Sahay , J. )
G.Jha/