http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: AWADH BIHARI YADAV & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/08/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1996 AIR  122            1995 SCC  (6)  31  JT 1995 (6)   248        1995 SCALE  (5)74

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH              CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7820-21 OF 1995.        ---------------------------------------------        [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 21401-02 of 1993] Sita Ram Gope & Ors. V. The State of Bihar & Ors.                       J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN, J.      Leave granted.      2. A  batch of  four writ petitions - CWJC No. 8426/88, CWJC No.  6373/88, CWJC No. 3720/90 and CWJC No.9000/89, was heard and disposed of by the High Court of Patna by a common judgment dated  30.7.1993. The appellants who obtained leave in S.L.P. (C) No. 20490 of 1993, are the petitioners in CWJC No. 8426  of 1988.  The intervenors  and respondents in CWJC No. 6373/88  and the   petitioners  in CWJC No. 3720/90, who have filed  the civil  appeals in pursuance to leave granted in S.L.P.  (C) Nos.  21401-02 of 1993, are the appellants in the other  appeals. No  appeal is  preferred by  any of  the parties in CWJC No. 9000/89 against the common judgment. The State  of   Bihar,  its  officials  -  the  Patna  Municipal Corporation, the  Patna Regional  Development Authority, the District Land  Acquisition Officer,  Patna, the Buddha Griha Nirman  Sahyog   Samiti  Ltd.  and  its  officials  are  the respondents in these appeals.      3. The main contesting respondents in the above appeals are -  the State  of Bihar,  the Patna  Regional Development Authority, and  the Buddha  Griha Nirman  Sahyog Samiti Ltd. CWJC No.  6373/88 was  a writ  petition filed  by the Buddha Griha Nirman  Sahyog Samiti  Ltd., praying  that appropriate directions may  be given  to the  respondents  therein  (the State  of   Bihar  and   its  officials,   Patna   Municipal Corporation, Patna  Regional Development  Authority and  the District Land  Acquisition Officer)  to give  effect to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

directions given  by the  High Court  in CWJC No. 3241/82 in the judgment  dated 23.5.84, and for other consequential and incidental reliefs,  including directions to the respondents to remove  the encroachments  or unauthorized  constructions from the vacant lands which formed the subject matter of the notification. The  four writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment  dated 30.7.1993, by a Division Bench of the Patna High  Court (S.  B. Sinha   and  D. Sinha, JJ). By the aforesaid judgment  the learned  Judges  directed  the  land acquisition officer  to sign and complete the award in terms of the  earlier order  of the Court dated 31.7.1984, in Form 15 and  to take  further steps in terms of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition  Act,1894 (hereinafter  referred to  as the ’Act’). CWJC  No. 6373/88 was allowed to the above extent.In view of  the above directions, the other writ petitions were dismissed. The  learned Judges also observed that the office will  start  preparing  separate  records  relating  to  the contempt of  court matters  so as  to pass necessary orders, and that  the authorities  before  whom  a  suit  and  other encroachment  proceedings   relating  to   the  land   under acquisition were  pending, shall expedite them. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners in CWJC No. 8426/88, the respondents  and intervenors in CWJC No. 6373/88 and the petitioners in  CWJC No.  3720/90, after  obtaining  special leave have filed the aforesaid appeals.      4.   We heard Mr. Raja Ram Agarwal and Mr. S. B.Sanyal, Senior Counsel  who appeared on behalf of the appellants and Mr. P.  N. Lekhi,  Senior Counsel,  Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate and Mr.  A. Sharan,  Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the respondents. The  subject matter  in the  appeals relates to land acquisition  proceedings, covering  an extent  of about 32.48 acres  in the  villages of Rajapur No. 3 and Dujra No. 4,  Perganna   Phulwari,  Thana  Phulwari,  District  Patna, initiated under  Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act as amended by Bihar Act No. 18 of 1964.      5.    Budhha Griha Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd., a society registered under the Societies Registration Act on 4.3.1958, (hereinafter called  the ’Society’),  and its  officials are the petitioners  in CWJC  No. 6373/88. The Society requested the State  Government to  acquire land  for the  purpose  of providing it  to doctors,  lawyers, Government  servants and journalists for  building purpose.  An extent of 25.09 acres of land  was acquired  under the  normal procedure  and  the acquisition was  completed on  11.7.1862. Possession  of the land was  taken and  compensation was also paid. There is no controversy about this part of the acquisition.      6.    The  Society wanted  to acquire  another block of 32.48 acres, the land adjacent to the aforesaid 25.09 acres. The entire controversy in this batch of appeals is regarding this  acquisition,  initiated  under  Section  4  read  with Section 17(4)  of the  Act  ("emergency"  acquisition).  The Notification  relating   thereto  is   dated  4.2.1959.  The declaration under  Section 6  was made  on 4.6.1969.  A writ petition  filed  in  the  High  Court  assailing  the  above proceedings was  allowed with  liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings afresh on 2.4.1960. While so, the Patna Improvement    Trust    (Patna    Development    Authority), (hereinafter referred  to as the ’Authority’), requested the Government to  acquire 64.48  acres of  land  in  Dujra  and Rajapur villages  for its  Boaring Road  Development Scheme, Phase-I. The extent of 32.48 acres of land which the Society wanted to  acquire and  for which proceedings were initiated (under Section  4(1) read with Section 17(4) fell within the area, which the Authority wanted  the Government to acquire. A fresh  Notification under Section 4 read with Section17(4)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

of the  Act, proposing  to acquire  64.48 acres  of land was promulgated on 6.8.1961.There was an understanding that upon acquisition, out  of the  above land,  32.48 acres  would be transferred to the Society. A declaration under Section 6 of the  Act   dated  5.10.1961,  appeared  in  the  Gazette  on 7.10.1961. As stated, the possession of 25.08 acres acquired under the  ordinary procedure was handed over to the society on 11.7.1962. It appears that possession of an area of 57.71 acres covered  by the  later notification,  was delivered to the Authority  on 6.8.1962. Later, the Authority handed over possession of  32.48 acres  to the  Society.  While  so,  in M.J.C. No.  65/62 the  High Court  of Patna  stayed the land acquisition  proceedings.   The  stay   was  in  force  from 23.1.1962 to  1.7.1964 and the M.J.C. was finally withdrawn. It appears  that the  Society deposited with the Authority a sum of  Rs.1 million  on 7.4.1965.  By letter  No.254, dated 18.1.1972 the  Government directed the Collector not to make the award till fill payment of compensation was deposited by the Authority.  The acquisition  was questioned  in C.W.J.C. No. 812/67 in the High Court of Patna. The said petition was dismissed. The matter was taken in appeal to this Court. The appeal was  also dismissed.  The decision  of this  Court is reported in  Ajodhya Bhagat  and others  vs. The  state   of Bihar and  others, AIR  1974 sc  1886. The Authority did not deposit the  entire compensation  amount despite  reminders. While so, on 14.8.1981 the Authority passed a resolution not to acquire  the entire  lands sought,  expect those portions which were  required for  construction of  the road.  It  is stated that  two awards  were passed  on  13.3.1982  for  an extent of  4.47 acres  and 3.32 acres only and the amount of compensation due  thereunder were  also paid.  No award  was passed in  respect of  the remaining  lands. It  is in these state of  affairs, on  22.8.1982 the  Society filed the writ petition CWJC  No. 3241/82,  and assailed  the resolution of the  Authority   dated  14.8.1981  and  also  prayed  for  a direction to  the respondents  therein to release the lands. The High  Court of  Patna by  its Judgment  dated 23.5.1984, quashed the  resolution of the Authority dated14.8.1981, and also directed the District Collector to prepare the award.In the said Judgment, it was noticed that the Society was given possession of  lands acquired  under the  normal procedure - 25.08 acres,  and also  lands acquired  under  the  emergent procedure -  32.48 acres. The Court further found that since possession of the land had been taken, the Government cannot withdraw from  the acquisition.  The validity of acquisition was upheld  by the  High Court  which was  affirmed by  this Court and  it was  observed that  the acquisition  cannot be nullified, for  not passing an award. The Court also noticed that there  was unauthorized construction and encroachments, but since  the land  vested in the Government and possession was taken  over, no rights will acquire by such unauthorized construction and  encroachments. It is seen that the special leave petition  filed against the Judgment of the High Court in  CWJC   No.  3240/82  was  dismissed  by  this  Court  on 23.9.1984. Pursuant to the aforesaid Judgment an award dated 31.7.1984 was  passed. The  appellants  contend    that  the proceeding dated 31.7.1984 is only a valuation statement and not an  award. According  to the respondents, the proceeding dated 31.7.1984  is in substance an award. The Society filed an application  before the  Collector under the Bihar Public Encroachment Land Act, 1976 against 207 persons. The Society also filed  Title Suit  No. 32/87  in the Sub Court I, Patna against  357   persons  for  restoration  of  possession  by evicting the encroachers.      7.    The  above events  led to  the filing of CWJC No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

6373//88 by  the Society  against the  State of  Bihar,  the Authority and the Land Acquisition officer to give effect to the Judgment  rendered in  CWJC No.  3241/82 and  for  other reliefs  and   complete  the  acquisition  proceedings.  The appellants herein  filed CWJC  No. 8426/88  and 3720/90,  in effect  contending   that  the   entire   land   acquisition proceedings had  lapsed in  view of Section 11-A of the Act. They are  also intervenors in CWJC No.6373/88. Before us, as also before the High Court, the objections of the appellants and intervenors  against the land acquisition proceeding are three-fold:      (i) The land acquisition proceeding have lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Act.      (ii) The  proceedings dated  31.7.1984 is  not an award since it is not in Form 15 and is unsigned.      (iii) The  Society is  not entitled  to any  relief  as prayed for  in CWJC  No. 6373/88,  since  it  has  initiated alternate   proceedings by way of title suit and application under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.      8.    The  sheet-anchor of  the appellants plea is that the land  acquisition proceedings  have lapsed  in  view  of Section 11-A of the Act. In order to understand the scope of the  plea   it  will  be  useful  to  extract  the  relevant provisions of  the Acts. [Section 6, Section 11, Section 11- A, Section 17 and Section 18(1)].      "6. Declaration  that land  is  required      for a public purpose.-      (1) Subject  to the  provisions of  Part      VII of  this Act,  when the  appropriate      Government    is     satisfied,    after      considering the  report ,  if any,  made      under Section 5-A, 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 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 (1), irrespective      of  whether   one  report  or  different      reports has  or have been made (wherever      required  )   under  Section  5-A,  sub-      section (2)           Provided that  no9  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,  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,  shall  be  made      after the  expiry of  one year  from the      date   of   the   publication   of   the      notification:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

         Provided  further   that  no   such      declaration shall  be  made  unless  the      compensation  to  be  awarded  for  such      property id  to be paid by a Company, or      wholly or  partly out of public revenues      or some  fund controlled or managed by a      local authority."      "11.    Enquiry and award by Collector.-      (1) on the day so fixed, or on any other      day  to   which  the  enquiry  has  been      adjourned, the  Collector shall  proceed      to enquire  into the objections (if any)      which any  person interested  has stated      pursuant to a notice given under Section      9 to the measurements made under Section      8, and into the value of the land at the      date   of   the   publication   of   the      notifications  under   Section  4,  sub-      section   (1), and  into the  respective      interests of  the compensation and shall      make an award under his hand of -      (i) the true area of the land;      (ii)  the   compensation  which  in  his      opinion  should   be  allowed   for  the      land;and      (iii)the  apportionment   of  the   said      compensation among all the persons known      or believed  to  be  interested  in  the      land, of whom,or of whose claims, he has      information, whether  or not  they  have      respectively appeared before him:           Provided that  no  award  shall  be      made by  the Collector  under this  sub-      section without the previous approval of      the appropriate  Government or  of  such      officer as  the  appropriate  Government      may authorise in this behalf:      (2)   Notwithstanding anything contained      in sub-section  (1), if  at any stage of      the  proceedings,   the   Collector   is      satisfied   that    all   the    persons      interested   in the  land  who  appeared      before him have agreed in writing on the      matters to  be included  in the award of      the Collector  in the form prescribed by      rules   made    by    the    appropriate      Government,  he   may   without   making      further enquiry, make an award according      to the terms of such agreement.      (3)   The  determination of compensation      for any land under sub-section (2) shall      not in  any way affect the determination      of  compensation  in  respect  of  other      lands in  the same locality or elsewhere      in accordance  with the other provisions      of this Act.      (4)  Notwithstanding  anything contained      in the  Registration  Act,1908,  (16  of      1908),  no  agreement  made  under  sub-      section   (2)   shall   be   liable   to      registration under that Act."      "11-A.  Period  within  which  an  award      shall be made.- The Collector shall make      an  award  under  Section  11  within  a      period of two years from the date of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    publication of the declaration and if no      award is  made within  that period,  the      entire proceedings  for the  acquisition      of the land shall lapse:           Provided that  in a  case where the      said  declaration   has  been  published      before  the  commencement  of  the  Land      Acquisition (Amendment  ) Act, 1984, the      award shall  be made  within a period of      two years from such commencement.      Explanation.-   In computing  the period      of  two   years  referred   to  in  this      section, the  period  during  which  any      action or  proceeding  to  be  taken  in      pursuance of  the  said  declaration  is      stayed by  an order  of a Court shall be      excluded."      "17.  Special   powers   in   cases   of      urgency.-  (1)   In  cases  of  urgency,      whenever the  appropriate Government  si      directs, the  Collector, though  no such      award  has   been  made,   may,  on  the      expiration  of  fifteen  days  from  the      publication of  the notice  mentioned in      Section  9,   sub-  section   (1),  take      possession of any land needed for public      purpose. Such  land shall thereupon vest      absolutely in  the Government, free from      all encumbrances.      XXX              XXX                 XXX      (4)   In the case of any  land to which,      in  the   opinion  of   the  appropriate      Government,  the   provisions  of   sub-      section  (1)  or  sub-section  (32)  are      applicable, the  appropriate  Government      may  direct   that  the   provisions  of      Section 5-A  shall not be apply, and, if      it does  so direct, a declaration may be      made under  Section 6  in respect of the      land at  any time  after the date of the      publication of  the  notification  under      section 4, sub-section (1)."      "48.  Completion   of  acquisition   not      compulsory,  but   compensation  to   be      awarded when not completed.-      (1) Expect  in the  case provided for in      Section 36,  the Government  shall be at      liberty to withdraw from the Acquisition      of any  land of which possession has not      been taken."      It was  contended that  in view  of Section 11-A of the Act the  entire land  acquisition proceedings  lapsed as  no award under Section 11 had been made within 2 years from the date of  commencement of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. We are  of the view that  the above plea has no force. In this  case, the  Government had  taken possession  of the land in  question under  Section 17(1)  of the Act.It is not open to  the Government  to withdraw  from  the  acquisition (Section 48  of the  Act). In  such  a case, Section 11-A of the Act  is not  attracted and  the acquisition  proceedings would not  lapse, even  if it  is assumed  that no award was made within  the period  prescribed by  Section 11-A  of the Act. Delivering the Judgment of a Three Member Bench of this Court, in  Stander Prasad  Jain and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 (4) sc 369, s.p. Bharucha, J., at page 374,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

paragraph 15, stated the law thus:         "Ordinarily, the  Government can take      possession of  the land  proposed to  be      acquired  only   after   an   award   of      compensation in respect thereof has been      made under  section 11.  Upon the taking      of possession,  the land  vests  in  the      Government, that is to say, the owner of      the land  loses to  the  Government  the      title to  it.This  is  what  section  16      states. The  provisions of  section 11-A      are intended  to benefit  the  landowner      and ensure that the award is made within      a period  of two  years from the date of      the  section   6  declaration.   In  the      ordinary    case,     therefore,    when      Government fails to make an award within      two  years   of  the  declaration  under      section 6, the land has still not wasted      in the  Government and its title remains      with   the    owner,   the   acquisition      proceedings are  still pending,  and  by      virtue of  the provisions of section 11-      A, lapse.  When section 17(1) is applied      by reason  of urgency,  Government takes      possession of  the  land  prior  to  the      making of the award under Section 11 and      thereupon the  owner is diversted of the      title to the land which is vested in the      Government. Section  17(1) states  so in      unmistakable terms. Clearly, section 11-      A can  have no  application to  cases of      acquisition under  Section  17,  because      the lands  have already  vested  in  the      Government and there is no  provision in      the said  Act by  which land statutorily      vested in  the Government  can revert to      the owner."                           (Emphasis supplied)      We,  therefore,   hold  that   the   land   acquisition proceedings in the instant case did not lapse.      9. We  are also  of the view that the proceedings dated 31.7.1984 (appearing  82 to  84 of Paper Book, Vol.I, and at pages 203  to 206 of paper Book, Vol.II), is in substance an award as contemplated by Section 12 of the Act.It  is signed by the  District Land  Acquisition officer (Collector) under the Act,  though the signature appears to be illegible dated 31.7.1984, the  High Court  observed that the State is bound by the  directions given  by the  Court earlier in CWJC  No. 3142/82, that  in the   light  of the aforesaid order of the High Court,  proceedings dated 31.71984 was passed, that all requisites of an award are mentioned in the said ordure, and since there  is substantial compliance, it should be treated as an award. The High Court was also of the view that even a defective award  which has provisions with the directions of the Court  and the  provisions of  law will not invite " the wrath" of  Section 11-A  of  the  Act.  We  are  in  general agreement with  the reasoning  and conclusion  of  the  high Court in  holding that three proceedings dated 31.7.1984, in the facts  and circumstances of the case, is an award passed by the Collector under the Act, though not in Form 15. It is only a  matter of  procedure which  should be complied with. Since the  direction given  by the  High Court  in CWJC  No. 3241/82 should  not  be  effectuated,  the  High  Court  was justified   in directing the authority concerned to sign and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

complete the  award in  t terms  of the  earlier order dated 31.7.984. The  reasoning of the High Court that it has power to issue  such directions under Article 215, in a case where otherwise the  conduct of  the persons called for punishment in contempt,  appears to  be justified.  We  hold  that  the proceedings dated  31.7.1984, is  in  substance,  an  award, though it is not in Form 15.      10. Mr. Sanyal, senior counsel, very strongly contended that since  the Society  filed  an  application  before  the Collector under  the Bihar  Public  Land  Encroachment  Act, 1956, and also title suit No. 32/87, in the Sub Court, Patna for removing  the encroachments, the High Court was in error in not dismissing the writ petition filed by the Society. In other words, the plea was that since the Society has availed of the  alternate remedy, the writ petition should have been dismissed and  the High  Court should not have exercised the discretionary  jurisdiction   under  Article   226  of   the Constitution of  India. Counsel  pressed  into  service  the decision of  this Court  in Jai Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1977 sc 898, to substantiate the plea. We are of the view  that Jai  Singh’s case is clearly distinguishable. In that  case, the  appellant before  this court  prayed for quashing the  demand made against him in respect of royalty. His case  was that  gypsum ore was less than the p[articular percentage of  purity. Whereas  according to the revenue, it was not  so established and the substance contained a higher percentage of  purity. The  plea of  the appellant  was  not accepted by  the statutory  authorities. The  writ  petition filed by  the appellant  in the  High Court was dismissed on the ground  that it  fact and the appellant had an alternate remedy. Against  the dismissal  of  the  writ  petition  the appellant filed  an appeal  in this  Court on  a certificate granted by  the High Court. He also filed a suit wherein the same question  was agitated  which was the subject matter of the writ  petition. In  these circumstances, this Court held that the  appellant, in  the said  case, cannot  pursue  two parallel remedies  in respect of the same matter at the same time. We  are also  of the  view that  ordinarily the  above rule should prevail. There may be extraordinarily situations or  circumstances,  which  may  even  warrant,  a  different approach, where the orders passed by the Court are sought to be violated  or thwarted  with impunity. The Court cannot be silent spectator  in such  extra- ordinary  situations.  The position obtaining  herein is rather a different and unusual one. The  writ petition  was filed  by the Society (CWJC No. 6373/88), praying for a direction to the respondents to give effect to  the directions  contained in the earlier judgment of this  Court in CWJC No. 3241/82, dated 23.9.1984, and for other consequential  or incidental reliefs. So, it cannot be said that  in the  instant case,  the relief  sought was  to remove the  encroachments from  the lands  or to  remove the unauthorized  constructions,   which  are   covered  by  the encroachment case  or the title suit. They may be incidental or consequential to the main relief, in giving effect to the earlier directions  or orders  of  Court.  But  such  relief cannot  be   withheld  or  denied.  In  the  Judgment  dated 23.9.1984,  rendered   in   CWJC   No.3241/82,   the   Court categorically held  that non-passing  of the  award will not nullify the acquisition, the validity of the acquisition was upheld by  the High  Court and  the Supreme  Court, and  the encroachments or  the unauthorized structures were put up by persons in  the property  at their  own  risk,  and  it  was further observed  that once possession of the land was taken by the  Government the  fact that  the  owner  of  the  land entered upon  the land, will not obliterate the consequences

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

of vesting,  and allowed  the writ  petition  filed  by  the Society, and quashed the steps taken for derequisitioning of the land  requested by  the Authority  and issued  a writ of mandamus directing  the Collector  of Patna  to prepare  the award  as   expeditiously  as  possible.  The  plea  of  the respondents  that  the  project  itself    was  rendered  an impossibility  on  account  of  excessive  encroachments  or unauthorized constructions,  was repelled,  and relying upon the decision  of this  Court in  Balwant Narayan  Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat and  others, AIR 1975  SC 1767, it was held that once possession  of the  land was  taken by  the Government, even if  the owner  of the  land entered  upon the  land and resumed possession of it the very next moment, such act does not have  the effect  of obliterating  the  consequences  of vesting. In  allowing the  prayer of the Society in CWJC No. 6373/88, by  a common  judgment dated  30.7.1993,  the  High Court was only implementing its earlier order and directions in CWJC  No. 3241/82  which  it  was  bound  to  do  in  the circumstance.  We   hold  that  the  directions  and  orders contained in  CWJC No.  3241/82, which  were not  interfered with, by  this Court  in special  leave petition,  by  order dated   21.3.1984,   should   be   fully   and   effectively implemented. We hold so.      11. Mr.  Sanyal, senior  counsel feebly raised the plea that the Government authorities did not take possession of a small portion  of the  land, about  7 acres; and there is no award relating  thereto, and  the proceedings regarding that portion of  the land,  had  lapsed.  This  plea  is  without substance. In our view the proceedings dated 31.7.1984 is in substance an  award passed  in pursuance  of the  directions given by  this Court  in CWJC  No. 3421/82. The entire land, for which request for acquisition was made by the Authority, was delivered  over to the Authority.Possession was taken of the entire  land and  the plea  that possession  of a  small portion of the land was not taken is against the record (see AIR 1974 SC 1886 at 1889).      12.   All  the  contentions  urged  on  behalf  of  the appellants fail. The appeals are wholly without merit and we dismiss them  with costs. It is distressing to note that the land acquisition  proceeding which  was initiated for a very laudable purpose,  more  than  37  years  ago,  is  not  yet complete. At one point of time, it was brought to the notice of the Court that even the files relating to the acquisition of land are not traceable. The High Court was constrained to hold, on  an earlier  occasion, that non-traceability of the files must  be attributed  to deliberate  destruction of the relevant files  by the "interested parties",and "but for the intervention of  influential persons",  the Government would not  have  stayed  the  entire  proceedings  as  it  did  on 3.5.1965. We  are constrained  to observe  that the hands of the interested  parties seem  to be  still active,  and  the intervention of such influential persons has not disappeared (AIR 1974  SC 1888).  A laudable  and noble cause is delayed for more  than 3 decades, under one pretext or the other. We express our  anguish in  the entire episode. We, therefore , direct the  State of  Bihar, its  officials, the authorities and other  persons concerned  who are  seized of the subject matter of  the  instant  land  acquisition  proceedings,  to complete the  proceedings in  the quickest possible time. We further direct  the appellants in these appeals to pay costs of Rs.  10,000/- in  each  of  these  appeals,  towards  the Advocate’s fees for the Society.      13.  The appeals are dismissed with costs as aforesaid.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10