JUDGMENT
B.N. Jha, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of a portion of the land bearing plot No. 1963 of Khata No. 98 in village Katar. Katar High English School, Shahabad, is situated to adjoining plots 1965, 1967, 1968 and 1964. The hostel building is constructed on plot No. 1962. There is a road in front of the school building. In between the road and the hostel building lies the land of plot No. 1963 which belonged to petitioner No. 1. A portion of plot No. 1963 which belonged to the co-sharer of petitioner No. 1 was acquired by the school sometime in 1963. Proceeding for acquisition of the land of plot No. 1963 measuring 42 decimals was started under the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Collector of Shahabad at the instance of Ramnagina Singh, the then Secretary of Katar High English School. A general notice in Form 3 (annexure A) under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) as amended by Bihar Act XI of 1961 was issued in the following words:
Whereas it appears to the Collector of Shahabad that land is required to be taken by Government at the public expenses for public purpose viz. for construction of High School building, hostel and quarters etc. in the village Katar No. 122, Pergana Piro zila Shahabad, it is hereby notified that for the above purpose piece of land measuring more or less 1 bigha 5 kathas 6.56 chataks of standard measurement equivalent to 0.42 acre bounded as follows:
North-by S.P. No. 1120
East -by S.P. No. 1962
South- by part of S.P. No. 1963
West-by S.P. No. 85
is required within the above-said village Katar No. 122.
This notification is made under the provision of Section 4 of Act I of 1894 as amended by Bihar Act XI of 1961 to all whom it may concern.
A plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collectorate of Shahabad. Schedule XIV Form No. 202.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17(1) of the said Act the Local Government have decided that in view of the urgency of project provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply.
Sd. Illegible.
Collector of Shahabad.
The said notice was served at various places as is, contemplated in the Act. A notice (Annexure B) was also issued in the name of the petitioner and was received by Ramchandra Singh son of petitioner Jairam Singh. The full contents of the notice are as follows:
Mouza Katar, thana No. 122, Thana Piro, zila Shahabad. Banam -Jairam Singh wald Nageshwar Singh Kaum Koeri.
Tarikh ........ 19....
Samaharta, Arrah.
Chuki Bihar Sarkar ke yah ma-lum parata hai ki High School waste mauje Katar Pergana Piro zila Shahabad me sarkar ko jamin ki jarurat hai isliya bajariya iske yah mustahar kiya jata hai ke aam majkur ki liye ek kita jamin ki kami pesh bigha...katha...chhatak...ek ke nam se wo wo barabar acre ke hai mouze majkur ke under jarurat hai aur jiski Chauhadi hasab jail
Khata Khesra Rakba
Uttar 98 1963/1 0.20
Dakhin
Purab 1963/2 0.02
Pachim 1953/3 0.20
Yah istahar dafe 4 Act 1894 joki Act 38 san 1923 ki ruse tarmim kiya gaya hai ki shaton ke mutabik unlon-gon ke liye jinki is jamin ka naksha bhumi arjan padadhikari ke daftar ke mulajim kiya ja sakta hai.
Act majkur ki dafe 17(4) ko is jo akhtiyar hasil hai un par amal karane local sarkar ne yah tajbij ki hai ki kam ke jaruri hone ke le haj se Act ki (illegible) 5A ki sharton kam me nahi lai jeyegi.
Sd. Illegible.
Bhumi Arjan Padadhikari,
Shahabad, Arrah.
Notification of declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made by the Government and was duly published in Bihar Gazette on the 20th October, 1963 (annexure C). A general notice under Section 9(1) and (2) of the Act was issued and was served on the spot on the 19th October, 1963 and a similar special notice was also issued to the petitioner No. 1, and was served on the 19th October, 1963. As petitioner No. 1 was not at his place, the notice was hung in the house of petitioner No. 1 in presence of the chowkidar. According to these notices the 12th November, 1963 was fixed for hearing the claims of interested persons by the Land Acquisition Officer at Katar High English School. It appears from the record of the case that no claims or objections were filed. Thereafter notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner for taking the money under the award prepared by the Collector under the Act. Notice was personally taken on the 13th December, 1965 by Jairam Singh, petitioner No. 1, who gave his left hand thumb impression on the notice. In the meantime, petitioner No. l transferred six kathas out of the aforesaid land of plot No. 1963 to petitioners No. 2 to 7 by four sale deeds executed on the 8th September, 1965. On the 5th January, 1966, petitioners 2 to 7 appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer through an advocate by filing a vakalatnama asserting that they had purchased six kathas out of 14 kathas towards south of the land in question and they prayed for time to produce their papers. A stamped petition which bears the thumb impression of petitioner No. 1 was also filed by him on that very date. It is stated therein that he had already filed his show cause earlier, but the same was not on the record. In that petition it was stated that he had sold six kathas out of plot 1963 and on the remaining portion of the plot, his residential house together with chabutra of Mahabirji stands. It was contended therein that the aforesaid land was meant for residential purposes. Therefore, he prayed for exemption of the land from acquisition. It may be mentioned here that the Kanungo took possession of the land acquired under the Act on the 22nd December, 1965 and he gave possession to Shri Rambachan Singh, the Secretary of the school. It appears that there is a typed and unstamped petition of objection purported to have been filed on the 20th December, 1965 by Jairam Singh, petitioner No. 1, which bears his thumb impression. That petition also bears the signature of the Peshkar and is dated the 20th Dec. ember, 1965 in which it is asserted that the school does not require the land of the petitioner as the school had already sufficient land. Ramnagina Singh got the proceeding started Balabdla on account of enemity and on that account there had not been any general notice or special notice to the petitioner and the notices were served collusively and fraudulently. It was further stated therein that the petitioner has partly constructed his residential house with a pucca well thereon where Murti of Lord Mahabir, chabutra and Dhawaja have been erected and as such, the land acquisition proceeding was invalid. The valuation of the land was Rs. 4,000/- per katha and that he had already transferred six kathas of the land to Jadu Singh and others, respondents 2 to 7 by virtue of sale deeds dated the 8th September, 1965. The purchase money of those lands is also mentioned in the petition. The Land Acquisition Officer took a serious view of the matter that the said petition, though received’ by the Peshkar. on the 20th December, 1965 was not placed before him on the date he ordered for taking delivery of possession of the acquired land. It may be mentioned that this petition was unstamped and did not bear the sea! or the signature of the Land Acquisition Officer before whom it is expected to be filed. The petition dated the 5th January, 1966 in which the reference of earlier petition is made is typed and duly stamped. He, thereafter, made an inspection of the spot and after hearing, he passed orders on the 28th August, 1967 on the objection filed by petitioner No. I. After considering several facts he showed his inability to do anything in the matter as possession had already been delivered to the school and rejected the petition. The aforesaid facts appear from the records of the case which we called for at the time of the hearing of the writ application. The petitioners filed this writ application on the 24th October, 1967.
2. In the writ application the petitioners have alleged that Shri Ramnagina Singh, resident of village Katar had covetous eyes upon the land on account of its enviable site. He attempted to acquire it at lower price but he failed. Therefore, he laid a trap for acquiring through the medium of the school and, therefore, he made an application to the Collector of Arrah for the acquisition of the land and by bringing the offices of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Collector of Arrah in collusion and under mis-representation, he got the notifications under Section 4, 6 and Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act issued and served Batabala. He alleged that the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act found during enquiry that individual notices under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act were suppressed and not served upon the locality. The alleged notifications have been made annexure A and A/1 to this writ application. It is further alleged that it was found from the records that the Headmaster and the Secretary of the school fraudulently obtained the signature of a minor boy Ramchandra Singh, son of petitioner No. 1 who was reading in the school by calling him from the class room on the notification under Section 4 and 17(4) of the Act without allowing him to know its contents by bringing the service peon in their collusion contrary to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. The notice is made annexure B. It is contended that the notices and the notifications were not properly made and issued and the description of the land was also not correctly given therein. According to the petitioners, the disputed land contained a house, deity, chabutra, and Dhawaja but the notices did not mention this fact and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer otherwise no action could have been taken for acquisition of the land. The land was neither waste nor arable, therefore, the provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(4) are not attracted to the facts of the case and the dispensing of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act was illegal and ultra vires. It is asserted that the notifications under Sections 6 and 9 were issued without following the proper procedure. It is further alleged that the notifications and notices for acquisition were issued mala fide, fraudulently and collusively for the purpose of taking the land by the Secretary himself in the name of the school. The petitioners attacked the various notifications as collusive and mala fide and, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the orders, notifications, award etc, connected with the land acquisition proceedings.
3. The Headmaster of Katar High English School as well as its management through the present secretary, Rambachan Singh have appeared and shown cause and have filed a counter affidavit sworn by the Secretary Rambachan Singh. They have denied the allegations made by the petitioners in their petition. They have asserted that a portion of plot No. 1963 was acquired by the school by a registered deed of exchange with the co-sharer of petitioner No. 1 to whom it belonged. There is no house on the land in question nor is there installed any idol of Mahabirji. The land in possession of the school was not sufficient and therefore the disputed land was acquired for the purposes of the buildings of the school. It is true that the school has three highas of land at village Amar which is at a distance of two miles west of the school. Notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was duly served. They further asserted that Ramchandra Singh son of petitioner No. 1 was not a student of the school on the alleged date of service of notice (annexure B) under Section 4 read with Section 17(4). The alleged date of service of notice i.e., 11-8-1963 was a Sunday and the school did not sit on that date. The whole allegation of petitioner No. 1 that the notice was served on his Son by calling him from his class room and taking his signature without letting him know the contents of the notice was entirely false, unfounded and baseless. Ram Chandra Singh was aged about 18 years when the notice was served on him. No fraud or collusion, was committed by the secretary of the school. The fact of acquisition was known to petitioner No. 1 from the very beginning and after service of the notice under Section 4, he executed fraudulent sale deeds without any consideration in favour of wealthy persons so that they may carry on litigations. The petitioner No. 1 never raised any objection in the acquisition proceeding which lasted about four years. The possession of the acquired land had been duly delivered to the school which is in possession of the same.
4. The petitioners have also reiterated their allegations which they made in their petition in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondents. It is stated that Ramchandra Singh was minor at the time of the service of notice and was a student of the school. The Land Acquisition Officer found this fact to be true at the time of his enquiry. It is stated that the respondents misread the report of the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have attacked the validity of the notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that they were served Balabala in collusion with the Secretary. The grounds for attacking in this connection is that Ramchandra Singh, the son of petitioner No. 1 was reading in the school. The allegation is that the Secretary and the Headmaster called him from the class room and asked him to sign on the notice without letting him know the contents of the notice. This assertion of petitioner No. 1 has been denied by respondents 5 and 6 as wholly baseless. They assert that Ramchandra Singh, son of petitioner No. 1 was not a student of the school and the 11th August, 1963, alleged date of service, was a Sunday. Therefore, no classes could be held on that date. I may mention here that in the petition of petitioner No. 1 either dated the 20th December, 1965 or the 5th January, 1966, this allegation does not find place. It is for the first time that we find in the report of the Land Acquisition Officer (annexure D) dated the 28th August, 1967. In . the writ petition, the petitioners have not asserted that notice under Section 4 was served on the son of petitioner No. 1 by calling him from the class room- and without allowing him to know the contents of the notice, obtained his signature in collusion with the serving peon as at that time he was reading in the school. In this connection, the statement as made in paragraph 9 of the writ application is as follows:
That it has also been found from the records that the Headmaster of the school and the secretary of the school fraudulently obtained signature of minor boy, Ramchandra Singh son of the petitioner No. 1 who was and is reading in the school by calling him in the class room on the notice under Section 4 and 17(4) of the L.A. Act without allowing him to know its contents by bringing the serving peon in their collusion contrary to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. A copy of the notice is annexure B.
According to this, the Land Acquisition Officer found the aforesaid facts during enquiry. From the report of the Land Acquisition Officer it does not appear who made this allegation about the service of notice on Ramchandra Singh and from what papers and record he found this fact. The Headmaster and the Secretary have firstly asserted that Ramchandra Singh was not a school student at that time and secondly the alleged date of service of notice was a Sunday. Their stand is that it was served on the son of petitioner No. 1, Ramchandra Singh who was about 18 years of age at his house and the report of the peon was correct. It is also not stated by the petitioners, in what class Ramchandra Singh was then reading. No attempt has been made by the petitioners to call for the school records to show that classes were held on the 11th August, 1963 and Ramchandra Singh was a student of the school at the relevant time. This is a disputed fact. The Land Acquisition record shows that general notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) were served at different places and special notice was also served on Ramchandra Singh son of petitioner No. 1 on the 11th August, 1963. Ramchandra Singh was a sufficiently grown up boy. Assuming that the allegation of the petitioners is true, if notice would have been served on him in the manner alleged by the petitioner No. 1, he must have informed his father about it and this would have put him on guard and thereafter he must have made enquiries about it and filed objection soon after it. Nowhere it is stated as to when he came to know about the land acquisition proceeding and how. No fact or circumstances have been placed to show that the general notice (annexure A) was not served on the various places as appears from the service report of the peon regarding the service of annexure A.
6. The declaration of the Government under Section 6 of the Act dated the 6th September, 1963 that the land is required for the public purpose was validly made and was duly published in Bihar gazette dated the 2nd October, 1963 in Part II at page 467 as appears from the order sheet of the land acquisition case. This fact was not challenged by the petitioners at the time of the hearing of the case. The Land Acquisition Officer has recorded a finding that notice under Section 9 of the Act was duly served on petitioner No. 1. This notice was served on the 19th October, 1963. On the allegations made in the petition and counter affidavit and rejoinder to it and on the facts and circumstances of the case I am not prepared to believe that the notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) general or special, was not served at various places or Ramchandra Singh, or was served in collusion with the court peon in the manner as alleged by petitioner No. 1. There is nothing on the record to indicate that other notices or notifications as required by law were not made or served. There is no substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners in this respect.
7. Learned Counsel further submitted that the notices under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) were bad in law as the description in the notices were not correctly given. This fact is denied by learned Counsel for the respondents. He drew our attention to the general and special notices under Section 17(4) of the Act issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The general notice shows that at five places the notices were served and the boundary of the land is given as more or less 1 bigha 5 kathas 6.56 chataks of standard measurement equivalent to .42 acre bounded by different plots given in the notice. No attempt was made before us to show that the boundary of the acquired land was wrong. In the special notice served on Ramchandra Singh the land is mentioned as having 42 decimals, area, the khata number being 98 and plot No. as 1963/1, 1963/2, 1963/3 of village Katar pergana Piro district Shahabad. It was submitted that the plot number and khata number of the land is not mentioned in the notice under Section 4 which were served at different places. It is true that khata number and plot number are not mentioned but the notice is in the. prescribed form being form No. III in the Bihar Land Acquisition Manual which gives the form of combined notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act. The form requires to specify the limits of the land to be acquired. Therefore, the law does not require that khata and khesra of the land should be given. In my opinion, the boundary of the land given in the notice sufficiently answers the description of the land to be acquired.
8. It was further contended that 42 decimals could not be 1 bigha 5 kathas 6.56 chataks of standard measurement. There is no evidence before us as to what is the standard measurement. In the absence of that evidence it is difficult to hold that 42 decimals is not equivalent to 1 bigha 5 kathas 6.56 “chataks. Whatever may be admittedly, the land is 42 decimals in area and this was going to be acquired. Therefore, it cannot be said that full description of the land under acquisition was not given in the notice (annexure A). Hence, in my opinion, there is no substance in this connection of learned Counsel.
9. Learned Counsel next urged that the notice under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A is invalid in law. Section 17(4) dispenses the provisions of Section 5A and is only applicable when the land is waste or arable. In the present case, the petitioners claimed that the land is homestead land where the dwelling house the chabutra, the idol of Mahabirji and a pucca well existed. Therefore, the land was not arable or waste. Therefore, the Government had not jurisdiction to dispense with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act under Section 17(4). He placed before me to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Sarju Prasad Saha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1966 A.L.J. 1 and Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1967 A.L.J. 144. In the former case before the Supreme Court only a part of the land was waste or arable. The entire land was not admittedly arable or waste. Therefore, the notice in question issued in exercise of powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 dispensing with the provision of Section 5A shall not apply to the acquisition was invalid as the notification under Section 6 was issued without following the procedure prescribed by Section 5A which was obligatory. In the latter case, even according to the report of the Collector himself there were one lac of trees in the acquired land and there were trees of Tendu, Asan, Sidh, Bijaisal, Khair, Bamboo clumps Mahua and Kakora contained in the area. It was held in that case that in such circumstances, the land could not be regarded as waste land and, therefore, it was helds that the State Government did not apply their mind that the land was not waste land and, therefore, Section 17(4) could riot apply. In such circumstances, the notification issued by the State Government under Section 17(4) dispensing with the provision of Section 5A was quashed and consequently the notification under Section 6 of the Act declaring the intention of the State Government that the land was acquired for the purpose without observing the formalities laid down under Section 5A was also quashed as invalid. In the present case this is not the position.
10. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that it is a homestead land. Partly due to meagre accommodation in his old residential house and mostly due to his desire for leading religious life, petitioner No. 1 built a house in portion of the above plot for his residence, dug a pucca well in it, installed an idol or Mahabirji on it and erected chabutra and Dhawaja thereon about fifteen years ago. Since then, petitioner No. 1 has been living in it and has been leading religious life devoting all his time over worship of Mahabirji. This fact is denied in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6. It is asserted therein by the respondents that there is no house in the plot in question nor is there any idol of Mahabirji installed on the land. The petitioner in his objection petition also asserted this fact that the acquired land contained his house and the deity of Mahabirji. But the learned Land Acquisition Officer who happened to visit the spot does not mention the fact of the existence of a house and the idol of Mahabirji and Chabutra and Dhwaja in his order dated the 28th August, 1967, though in his order he noticed the objection of the petitioner regarding the existence of a dwelling house and the idol of Mahabirji on the acquired land. We had the occasion at the time of argument to see the entire land acquisition proceeding papers which we had called for from the Arrah Collectorate. The existence of dwelling house or idol of Mahabirji nowhere has been noticed by the officers of the land acquisition department who visited the spot and made enquiries regarding the nature of the land. Moreover, it is not mentioned in the petition or anywhere regarding the nature of the dwelling house or the nature of the idol of Mahabirji whether the dwelling house was of permanent character or a tatti house of flimsy character. According to the Land Acquisition Officer notice under Section 9, which was served on the petitioner was served on the 19th October, 1963. The petitioner was required to be present on the 12th November, 1963 before the Officer at 10-30 A.M. at the Katar High English School. If there was a house or chabutra or idol of Mahabirji, it is expected that the petitioner No. 1 would have appeared before the officer and pointed out to him the existence of the house and idol of Mahabirji. Therefore, the existence of dwelling house and that of the idol of Mahabirji on the acquired land are disputed facts which it is not possible to decide conclusively in or writ jurisdiction without taking further evidence. But as the facts exists and the circumstances indicate, it is not possible to hold that the disputed land contained dwelling house and idol of Mahabirji and a pucca well or chabutra.
11. The order of the State Government dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act in the present land acquisition, shows that the State Government treated the land as waste and arable and orchard and was required for the construction of school building, hostel, quarters etc. of Katar High English School. The order of the Government (Annexure A/1) which was communicated to the Land Acquisition Officer dated the 22nd May, 1963, runs as follows:
NO. D. L. A.-SH-55/62 4012 R: Whereas there is urgency for the acquisition of the land described below which is waste and arable/orchard and is required for construction of school building, hostel, quarters etc. of Katar High School. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Act 1 of 1894) the Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that the Collector of Shahabad shall take action under Section (1) of the said section and that the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act shall not apply to the said acquisition.
Description of the land.
Area: 0.42 acre.
Village, Katar.
Thana No. 122.
Boundary:
North-S. P. No. 1120
East -S. P. No. 1962
South-Part of S.P. No. 1963
West-S. P. No. 805
By order of the Governor of Bihar.
Sd. N. Narayan.
Deputy Secretary to Government.
The Khatian prepared after measurement shows that a portion of plot No. 1963 measuring 20 decimals was Dhanhar. One portion measuring 2 decimals was a ditch and the remaining portion measuring 20 decimals was bhit, Kodar which contained one well (Eant mitti ka jorai) and contained some fruit trees of guaya, mango, Jamun etc. In the remark column there is a remark that the trees were not existing at the spot. According to the Bihar amendment of 1951 (Bihar Act 17 of 1951 Section (2) an explanation was added to Section 17 which runs as follows:
The sub-section shall apply to any waste or arable land, notwithstanding the existence thereon of forest, orchard or trees or temporary structure such as huts, pandals or sheds.
Therefore, even assuming that there were some trees or temporary structure such as huts, pandals or sheds, Section 17 will have the application and on account of the existence of such things on the land under acquisition, the order of the Government under Section 17(4) could not be held to be bad one. Therefore, the two cases relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners have got no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my opinion, the State Government was justified in passing orders dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act and, therefore, there is no defect or lacuna in the order and consequently the declaration of the State Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act could not be held to be invalid.
12. Learned Counsel further submitted that the powers exercised by the State Government were mala fide and were colourable exercise of powers. The secretary Ramnagina Singh had an eye on the land which he wanted for his own purpose but as he could not pay the price of the land, he failed to acquire it and, therefore, he in the name of the school, got it acquired by bringing the offices of the Collector in his collusion though this land was not required for the purposes of the school. It is difficult for me to accept this case of the petitioner. There is no evidence on the record except the assertion that Ramnagina Singh wanted to acquire the land for himself. A portion of the land of plot No. 1963 belonging to the co-sharer of the petitioner had already been acquired under a registered deed of exchange. Seeing the. map and the location of the land under acquisition, there is no doubt in my mind that the land is essentially required for the purpose of the school. This land intervenes the road and the hostel building. There is no evidence on the record that the adjoining lands of the school belonged to Ramnagina Singh and therefore, instead of getting the compound of the school extended in his own land, he proposed the land of the petitioner No. 1 to be acquired. The finding of the Land Acquisition Officer is that the notices under Section 9 of the Act were duly served on the petitioner. The report shows that as petitioner No. 1 was not at his house, the serving peon hung the notice in the house of petitioner No. 1 in presence of the chowkidar who had endorsed his name on the service report. This notice gives the full description of land and it was served on the 19th October, 1963. Since then, he kept quiet and did not come before the land validity of notifications orders and notices or the objection regarding the valuation of the land. On one fine day, on the 8th September, 1965, he executed four sale deeds without any appreciable cause in respect of six kathas of land giving a very heavy valuation and thereafter both the petitioner No. 1 and his purchasers, petitioners No. 2 to 7 appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on the 5th January, 1966 intimating the fact that petitioner No. 1 had sold six kathas out of the land under acquisition and then petitioner No. 1 alleged that he had his dwelling house, idol of Mahabirji on the remaining portion of the land under acquisition. There does not seem to me any requirement on the 8th September, 1965 for executing four sale deeds on one day. The respondents have contended that the sale deed executed by petitioner No. 1 were collusive without consideration, and were meant to carry on and fight out the litigation. Ramnagina Singh ceased to be the secretary long long ago and Rambachan Singh, who became secretary later on, got delivery of possession from the Kanungo on the 22nd December, 1965 and thereafter, the title in the land passed to the school free from all ncumbrances. Had the grievances of the petitioner No. 1 been genuine and bona fide, he could not have kept quiet for a long time even after service of notice under Section 4 or Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the case of the petitioners that there was mala fide and colourable exercise of powers by the State Government in acquiring the land which vitiated all acquisition proceedings cannot be accepted.
13. The notice under Section 4 of the Act was served on the petitioner No. 1 on the 11th August, 1963 and notice under Section 9 was served on the petitioner No. 1 on the 19th October, 1963, he still did not file any writ application in this Court soon thereafter but filed it on the 24th December, 1967 after undue delay. Therefore, the impugned notifications, orders and award could not be set aside by this Court in exercise of its (sic) discretionary powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution on this ground also.
14. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this application and, accordingly it must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-.
K.B.N. Singh, J.
15. I agree.
