JUDGMENT : RAJIV ROY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manu Tripurari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned AC to GP-26. (A) PRAYER: 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or order or direction to quash the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Land Revenue Department vide Memo No. 1733, by way of which the Respondent No. 2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for release of Petitioner's land from land acquisition proceedings; (ii) for a declaration that the Land Acquisition Proceedings being L.A. Case No. 20/72-73 initiated under the "Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to petitioner's land admeasuring 0.75 Acre comprised in Khata No. 26, Kheara No. 307 has lapsed in view of section 24(2) of Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 and upon failure of the Respondents to take physical possession; (iii) for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner under Section 48(2) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding; (iv) and/or for any other relief, for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present case. (B) FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The matter relates to a piece of land, the details of which is/are as follows: (i) khata no. 26; (ii) kheshra no. 307; (iii) thana no. 560; (iv) circle and district-Aurangabad; (v) area 0-75 decimals. 4. A proposal was made by the Executive Engineer, Building Department, Aurangabad for acquisition of land admeasuring 2 acres and 32 Decimal for the construction of Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Aurangabad . This led to L.A. Case No. 20/72-73 initiated under the Land Acquisiiton Act, 1894 (henceforth for short ‘The Act’) out of 2.32 acres that was to be acquired, 0.75 Acres belonged to the petitioner’s father which was also sought to be acquired. 5. A declaration was made on 11.08.1972. The notices were served upon the land owners whereafter the Department of Revenue (Acquisition Section) published a declaration under section 6 of ‘the Act’ in the official gazette declaring that the land is required for the purpose of construction of Government Girls Middle School (henceforth for short 'the School'). 6. 5. A declaration was made on 11.08.1972. The notices were served upon the land owners whereafter the Department of Revenue (Acquisition Section) published a declaration under section 6 of ‘the Act’ in the official gazette declaring that the land is required for the purpose of construction of Government Girls Middle School (henceforth for short 'the School'). 6. Pursuant thereto, a land admeasuring 2:32 acres comprised in Thana no 560, Khata No. 13 and 26, Khesra No. 306 and 307 was acquired and, the Land Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of ‘the Act’. The land of the petitioner remained litigated in which order of the competent Court came only on 04.02.1994. 7. In the meantime, 'the School' was constructed at Dharnidhar Road one kilometer away from the proposed site. It is admitted fact that the compensation was given/received by all the land owners except the petitioner's father and the compensation money was deposited with the Revenue Department in name of the father of the petitioner namely, Ram Naresh Prasad Singh. Another admitted fact is that the land always remained with the petitioners’ family and it was never taken over by the respondents. 8. It is to be noted that vide letter no. 123 DL 12.01.1979, the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar (henceforth for short, ‘the Department’) came up with the notification stating that the purpose for which the land is acquired, if it lapses, then in that case, the acquired land can be returned to the land owners. At this juncture, it is important to incorporate that the land of the petitioner was neither taken over by the respondents nor ever utilized for construction of 'the School' which as stated came up on a different land. 9. Further case of the petition is that on 21.08.2002 the petitioner filed a representation for the release of the land or in the alternative make payment of compensation stating that the construction of ‘the school’ has already taken place at a different place, namely, Dharnidhar Road , Aurangabad and the acquired land still remains unutilized. This also amounts to waiver and acquiescence with respect to the non-utilization of the land of the Petitioner for the purpose, it was notified for. 10. The case is that pursuant thereto, the Collector, Aurangabad vide letter no. This also amounts to waiver and acquiescence with respect to the non-utilization of the land of the Petitioner for the purpose, it was notified for. 10. The case is that pursuant thereto, the Collector, Aurangabad vide letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004 and addressed to the Commissioner cum Secretary of ‘the Department’ made recommendation for the release of the land (Annexure-P/9 to the petition). 11. Letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004 is incorporated hereinbelow: 12. In response, vide letter dated 31.07.2004 , the Director, Land Acquisition, Patna wrote a letter to the Collector, Aurangabad made query and further recorded that the acquired land can be returned to the land owners through "Deed of Conveyance with a condition that land owners further will not claim any damages with respect to subject property (Annexure-P/10 to the petition). 13. Letter no. 1008 dated 31.07.2004 is incorporated hereinbelow: 14. The further case of the petitioner is that vide letter no. 93 dated 09.10.2006, a notice was issued by the office of District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad informing that the land measuring 2.32 acres was acquired for the construction of school building but it has already been constructed at a different place. It was further recorded that considering the letter of Director, Land Acquisition, Patna vide letter no. 1904 dated 19.08.2026 , if any institution is in the need of land for public purpose, the concerned department must inform by 26.10.2006 so that the further proceeding may be initiated [ (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition).] 15. It is again important to incorporate the l etter no. 93 dated 11.10.2006 as below: 16. The petitioner meanwhile continued with the payment of compensation and/or the release of the land. However, no steps whatsoever was taken by the respondents. Meanwhile, the Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’ thereafter vide letter no. 15 dated 10.07 2008 wrote to the all the District Land Acquisition Officers of the State asking them for the status of acquired lands as also to submit the supervision report. 17. In response, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad submitted the supervision report with respect to the aforesaid land acquisition case and further recorded in the supervision report that the land admeasuring 2.32 acres which was acquired in 1971-72 has not been used for any public purpose and remains unutilized (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition). 18. 17. In response, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad submitted the supervision report with respect to the aforesaid land acquisition case and further recorded in the supervision report that the land admeasuring 2.32 acres which was acquired in 1971-72 has not been used for any public purpose and remains unutilized (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition). 18. The case of the petitioner is that since the possession of the land was never taken from him nor the compensation amount was ever paid, hence in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (henceforth for short ‘the 2013 Act’) the proceeding has lapsed as it has been specifically stipulated in the aforesaid provision that in a case of land acquisition proceeding initiated under ‘the Act’ where an Award has been made under Section 11 and 5 years or more has elapsed but physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid then the said proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate government if so want shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 19. Section 24 of 'the 2013 Act' read as follows: 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act 20. Thus the contention is that since the proceeding of the land in question, which was initiated in the year 1972 but neither the physical possession was ever taken nor compensation paid to the Petitioner and the admitted fact being he remained in continuous possession and Land Possession Certificate regularly issued by the revenue authorities, the award so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall be deemed to have lapsed. 21. The case is that the petitioner lastly represented in the year 2014 whereafter, C.W.J.C. No. 5894 of 2017 ( Sunil Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. ) was preferred before the Patna High Court. 22. The writ application came to be disposed of on 16.05.2025 with the following observation in paragraphs 16 to 23: 16. Having heard the parties and perusing the records of the case, the following points have come up for consideration which are as follows: (i) the land in question was acquired for the construction of a Girls School; (ii) the compensation amount was not paid/received by the petitioner's father; (iii) the Girls School now stand at Dharnidhar Road, Aurangabad; (iv) the land is not required for any other public purpose by any Department/Corporation/Central Government despite the notices published; (v) despite the positive recommendation of the Collector, Aurangabad, the Department has chosen not to take the final decision. 17. 17. While filing the counter affidavit after seven long years, that too at the District level and not by the Department, the respondents chose not to categorically deny the contention in the paragraph 20 of the writ petition made by the petitioner that till date, neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation paid/received. As recorded above, ‘the Department’ failed to file any reply. 18. The facts have been recorded, the petitioner has based his claim on the basis of letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 issued by ‘the Department’, as recorded above, the same has not been commented upon by the respondent in its counter affidavit. A valid point has been put forward by the learned Senior Counsel that the land is in their possession, remains unsued, the physical possession is with them and there is recommendation of the Collector, Aurangabad which need immediate consideration by ‘the Department’. 19. Annexure-11 Series of the reply to the counter affidavit shows the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) is still running in the name of the petitioner as issued on 23.04.2025. 20. This Court has also taken note of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra) wherein it has recorded that when the actual possession has not been taken, the acquisition is not completed. 21. As recorded above, despite passage of seven long years after the writ petition was filed, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 failed to file counter affidavit. This Court, in that background. has two options, either to adjourn the matter after imposing cost on 'the Department' for their failure to file reply and/or to direct it to take a decision at an earliest. 22. Since the matter is of the year 2017, this Court with the consent of parties intends to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) the petitioner shall be preferring a fresh application along with all the connecting/supporting documents/Annexures before the respondent no. 1, the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. 22. Since the matter is of the year 2017, this Court with the consent of parties intends to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) the petitioner shall be preferring a fresh application along with all the connecting/supporting documents/Annexures before the respondent no. 1, the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. Patna, Bihar within next two weeks; (ii) on the receipt of the said petition with documents supporting the case, the respondent no: I shall be taking up the matter and after noticing all the necessary parties, and hearing them/perusing the records shall take the matter to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner files the fresh petition. 23. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation. No cost. 23. This followed the representation dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure-P/2 to the petition) preferred by the petitioner before the respondent Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’. 24. As the respondents failed to take decision, MJC no. 3145 of 2025 was preferred. 25. Thereafter vide a reasoned order vide memo no. 1733 dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary of ‘the Department the representation of the petitioner was rejected amongst other on the ground that it is needed for the construction of the playground/ toilets for the school children as informed vide letter dated 20.09.2025 and as such, it cannot be released. (Annexure-P/14 to the petition). 26. MJC No. 3145 of 2025 thereafter was disposed of on 07.11.2025 after taking note of disposal of writ petitions after granting liberty to challenge the order dated 29.10.2025. 27. This followed the present petition. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the admitted facts are that: (i) the acquisition took place in the year 1972-73; (ii) the matter remained litigated up till 1994 before a competent civil court; (iii) in between 'the school came up at a different place one kilometer from the land in question; (iv) thereafter, from 1994 till the year 2014, the petitioner kept on representing before the respondents authorities to either to make payment or to release the land. (v) the petitioner always had the physical possession of the land and the revenue authorities kept on issuing Land Possession Certificate the last being on 23.04.2025. 29. (v) the petitioner always had the physical possession of the land and the revenue authorities kept on issuing Land Possession Certificate the last being on 23.04.2025. 29. Further, the Collector, Aurangabad after getting reports from the different state government agencies of the district including the Education Department came to the conclusion that the land in question is/are not needed for them and as such, recommendation vide letter no.76 dated 16.07.2004 for the release of the land. 30. The submission is that: (i) despite the representations preferred between the year 1994 to 2014, the respondents never took step to ensure that the payment is made to the petitioner to it is released in his favour considering that school has come up at the different place and is not needed and further the petitioner always remained in its physical possession; (ii) not only it remained in the peaceful physical possession of the petitioner, the revenue authorities kept on issuing rent receipts; (iii) however, after the Court in its last order referred the matter to ‘the Department’ for taking decision, for the first time, vide letter no. 1050 dated 20.09.2025 has been provided from the Education Department that the land is needed for amongst the other playground/toilet purposes of the school; (iv) the land of the petitioner is more than one kilometer away from the existing school and it is really unbelievable that the students shall be using toilets one kilometer away. 31. The case of the petitioner is that actually, the letter has been procured only to overcome the earlier recommendation made by the Collector, Aurangabad for the release of the land as the different agencies informed that it is not needed. The submission is that the date of the letter (20.09.2025) clearly shows that from five decades after the school was constructed, no agency needed the land rent after the order was passed by Patna High Court (16.05.2025) which followed the representation on 28.05.2025 that the letter showing need was brought on record (20.09.2025). 32. The submission is that in any case, as the petitioners always remained in physical possession of the land following 'the 2013 Act' it deemed to have lapsed and as such, the respondents will have to initiate fresh proceeding if at all they need the land and not otherwisde. 33. 32. The submission is that in any case, as the petitioners always remained in physical possession of the land following 'the 2013 Act' it deemed to have lapsed and as such, the respondents will have to initiate fresh proceeding if at all they need the land and not otherwisde. 33. In support of the case, the petitioner has relied on a case of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 with reference to paragraph 33.5 to 33.7 which read as follows: 33.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation 33.5.1. A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300-A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition; 33.5.2. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3-G and 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory incorporations of the right to restitute a person whose land has been compulsorily acquired; 33.5.3. Our courts have not only considered that compensation is necessary. but have also held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process; 33.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious process 33.6.1. The acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession are equally time- consuming. It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in concluding the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300-A. 33.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious process 33.6.1. The acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300-A. 33.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious process 33.6.1. The acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession are equally time- consuming. It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in concluding the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300-A. 33.6.2. Sections 5-A(1), 6, 11-A and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1-A) and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1). 16(1), 19(2), 25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Sections 3-C(1), 3-D(3) and 3- E(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory frameworks for the completion of individual steps in the process of acquisition of land within stipulated timelines. 33.6.3. On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to the timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the acquisition proceedings 33.7. The Right of conclusion 33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the property. along with possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State's, or its beneficiary's right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of Article 300-A 33.7.2. along with possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State's, or its beneficiary's right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of Article 300-A 33.7.2. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Inimovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 37 and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3- D3-E of the National Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise this right of the acquirer. 33.7.3. This step of taking over of possession has been a matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a way which ensures non- arbitrariness in this action of the acquirer22, For that matter, after taking over possession, the process of land acquisition concludes with the vesting of the land with the authority concerned. The culmination of an acquisition process by vesting has been a matter of great importance. On this aspect, the courts have given a large number of decisions as to the time, method and manner by which vesting takes place. (emphasis added) 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to paragraph-19 of the representation to show that the land possession certificate running in the name of the petitioner was last issued on 23.04.2025 and the documents were made part of the said representation as Annexure-11 series before the respondent authorities. 35. The contention is that when the possession of the land was never taken for the last five decades and always remained with the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid order of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra), the culmination of the acquisition never took place and thus the acquisition was not complete. In that background, the petitioner is entitled to the release of the rent. 36. The second order of the petitioner is that of the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sakharam Govinda Kadam & Ors. and analogues cases vs. The State of Maharastra & Ors. In that background, the petitioner is entitled to the release of the rent. 36. The second order of the petitioner is that of the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sakharam Govinda Kadam & Ors. and analogues cases vs. The State of Maharastra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 5854 of 2015) which was taken up pursuant to the remand from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Appeal to Leave No. 4551 of 2018 with the direction to take note of the judgment rendered in the Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 37. In the said case Sakharam Govinda Kadam (supra), in the earlier round of litigation, the Bombay High Court had allowed the writ petition by a common judgment and order dated 02.05.2017 taking note of ‘the 2013 Act’ as also that neither compensation was paid nor possession of the properties taken over. After the remand, it was taken up alongwith analogues cases and allowed on 10.07.2025 after holding that the acquisition has lapsed following ‘the 2013 Act’ though granting liberty to initiate fresh proceeding u/s ‘the 2013 Act’ as per section 24(2) of 'the Act'. 38. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to paragraphs-45 to 50 of the said order which read as follows: 45. In Indore Development Authority (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act. In paragraph 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the State Government acquires land and draws up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. In paragraph 262, after referring to T. N. Housing Board Vs. A Viswam, reported in (1996) 8 SCC 259 , the Court observed that it is settled law by a series of judgments that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is a recording of a memorandum or panchanama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. The Court also noted that it was common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not cooperate in taking possession of the land. 46. The Court also noted that it was common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not cooperate in taking possession of the land. 46. In paragraph 263, after referring to Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that preparing a panchanama is sufficient to take possession. In paragraph 265, referring to Balmokand Khatri Educational & Industrial Trust Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 212 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the normal mode of taking possession in cases of compulsory acquisition is by way of drafting the panchanama in the presence of panchas. 47. Finally, in paragraphs 274 and 279, the Court held that drawing of panchanama of taking possession is the mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases thereupon the land vests in the State and any re- entry or retaining possession thereafter is unlawful and does not inure for conferring benefits under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 48. In the present case, admittedly, no panchanama is available on the record. The Affidavit on behalf of the State Government does not even state that any panchanama was drawn in the presence of any independent witnesses. The survey record referred to a kabjepatti, but when the Petitioners asked for kabjepatti, if any, under the RTI Act, they were informed by communication dated 20 December 2014 that possession receipt or kabjepatti was not available. Even the Affidavit filed in this Petition does not even refer to the preparation of any kabjepatti or even the existence of any kabjepatti. Based on all this, the State government has not discharged the onus of establishing that it had taken over the possession of the said properties from the Petitioners. 49. There is only a bald statement that the possession of the said properties "was taken and vide Mutation Entry No.906 dated 15.5.2001, the said land was transferred in the name of the State Government in the Revenue records". There is no kabjepatti, and there is no panchanama. The State's version cannot be accepted based on such a bald statement backed by no credible evidence. 50. Though the State Government specified nothing, the kabjepatti is usually a unilateral receipt which may or may not contain the signature of a person from whom the possession is taken. There is no kabjepatti, and there is no panchanama. The State's version cannot be accepted based on such a bald statement backed by no credible evidence. 50. Though the State Government specified nothing, the kabjepatti is usually a unilateral receipt which may or may not contain the signature of a person from whom the possession is taken. Therefore, a panchanama is accepted as the proper mode for taking over possession. At times, the persons interested do not cooperate. Hence, the possession is taken by drawing a panchanama witnessed and signed by some respectable persons from the locality. In this case, there is neither any kabjepatti nor any panchanama. (emphasis added) 39. The submission is that there is no such document to show that any panchnama was ever prepared in the presence of any independent witnesses by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the contrary, the Land Possession Certificate was issued to the petitioner for the last five decades. 40. Learned counsel submits that it is ironical that the school which came into existence fifty years ago is bereft of toilets and they are now contemplating construction of toilet one kilometer away from the land to be used by the girls students. He concluded by submitting that the writ petition is fit to be allowed and the order needs interference. (C) THE CASE OF THE STATE RESPONDENTS: 41. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit and learned State counsel has relied on paragraphs 7 to 17 which read as follows: 7. That it is further important to mention here that the writ petitioner had preferred to file one similar writ petition bearing CWJC No. 5894/2017 which was disposed of on dated 16.05.2025 with following observations: - "... (i) the petitioner shall be preferring a fresh application along with all the connecting/ supporting documents/ Annexures before the respondent no. 1, the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna, Bihar within next two wecks." (ii) On the receipt of the said petition with documents supporting the case, the respondent no. 1 shall be taking up the matter and after noticing all the necessary parties. and hearing them/perusing the records shall take the matter to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner files the fresh petition..." 8. 1 shall be taking up the matter and after noticing all the necessary parties. and hearing them/perusing the records shall take the matter to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner files the fresh petition..." 8. That in compliance to the said order passed by Hon'ble High Court, the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna, Bihar after giving opportunity of personal hearing to all the concerned departments and officers and after the perusal of records and reports provided by all the concerned, thereafter has passed a well explained and reasoned speaking order issued vide memo no-1733 dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-P/14 of the writ) by which the respondent has categorically stated the reasons for not granting the relief as prayed by the writ petitioner in his writ petition and representation. Since, the present prayer of the writ petitioner is almost same, therefore in view of the reason mentioned in reasoned order dated 29.10.2025, the present prayer of the writ petitioner has no merit and same is fit to be dismissed. 9. That it is necessary to bring on record some relevant material facts before this Hon'ble Court for the just decision of the case. 10. That it is humbly submitted that in light of a proposal made by the requisitioning officer for acquisition of the land admeasuring 2.32 Acres for construction of Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalay, Aurangabad, a land acquisition proceeding vide L.A Case No. 20/72-73 was initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act wherein an area of 0.75 Acre of land under question bearing Khata No. 26, Khesra No. 307 was also acquired. 11 . That thereafter in view of said requisition, The Department of Revenue (Acquisition Section) published a declaration of 11.08.1973 under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in official gazette declaring that the land is required for public purpose, 12. That it is humbly submitted that after completing due process of acquisition under the provisions laid down under the LA Aet, 1894, the land appertaining Khata No. 13 and 26, Plot no. That it is humbly submitted that after completing due process of acquisition under the provisions laid down under the LA Aet, 1894, the land appertaining Khata No. 13 and 26, Plot no. 300 and 307, total measuring area 2.32 Acres of Mauza Aurangabad, Thana No. 500 was acquired and accordingly the award for the said land was prepared/made under section of the 11 of the Act, 1894 in the year 1976, which was challenged by the Awardee and ultimately the matter was sent to the competent Court for its adjudication and finally the award made by the then Land Acquisition Officer was confirmed on 04.02.1994 by the said competent court, which has already been admitted by the writ petitioner in the present writ application. 13. That as part of the compensation payment process, the amount was paid to two amongst the three awardees. However, due to a dispute between the third awardee Ramnaresh Singh (now deceased), son of Niranjan Singh, and Raghav Narayan Singh, son of Dharmdev Narayan Singh, over the concerned land in question, the matter in dispute was referred to the Special Land Acquisition Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in 1984), and the awarded amount was deposited as a Revenue Deposit in the treasury, which was also informed to the Awardee. 14. That it is humbly submitted that after completion of proceedings of acquisition under the Act, 1894, the physical possession over the acquired land was delivered to the requisitioning department on dated 5.09.1981. 15. That in view of the aforesaid it is clear that in the case of L.A. Case No. 20/72-73, the process of land acquisition i.e. declaration of award, payment of compensation and delivery of possession, the entire statutory processes had been completed long back in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Law. 16. That mainly on the basis of the following points the demand for return of land has been made by the petitioner: (1) lapse of the process of land acquisition in the light of Section 24 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, (ii) the applicant has claimed that he is in possession of the land in question. (iii) existence of Jamabandi and issuance of revenue receipt in the name of the applicant. (iv) non-payment of compensation amount to the applicant. 17. (iii) existence of Jamabandi and issuance of revenue receipt in the name of the applicant. (iv) non-payment of compensation amount to the applicant. 17. That it is relevant to mention the extracts from the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLP No. 9036-9038/2016 (Indore Development Authority vs Manohar Lal & Others) regarding the grounds of lapse of land acquisition process under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013:- Para 342 says: ... It is very easy to lay a claim that physical possession was not taken, with respect to open land. Yet, once vesting takes place, possession is presumed to be that of the owner, ie, the State Government and land has been transferred to the beneficiaries, Corporations, Authorities, etc... for developmental purposes and third-party interests have intervened. Such challenges cannot be entertained at all under the purview of Section 24(2) as it is not what is remotely contemplated in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. para 363(3) says: The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, If compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse ???? 163(7) Once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) para 363(9) It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition." (emphasis added) 42. Learned State counsel submits that the aforesaid facts clearly show that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thus the writ petition be dismissed. (D) REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE AVERMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 43. Learned State counsel submits that the aforesaid facts clearly show that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thus the writ petition be dismissed. (D) REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE AVERMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 43. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) relied upon by the respondents, clearly records in paragraph 363(3) that the deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceeding under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of the authorities for five years or prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of the land has not been taken nor compensation paid. 44. He submits that not only the repeated representations followed by the writ petition preferred recorded that they are in possession of the land, the respondents issued the Land Possession Certificate regularly. Thus, in principle, neither the possession was ever taken, formal document signed nor payment of compensation made. In that background, the respondents illegally rejected the claim. The writ petition thus is fit to be allowed. (E) FINDINGS: 45. This Court has heard the parties at length and have perused the records. The fact that emerges is/are that: (i) in the year 1972, the land acquisition case no. 20 of 1972-73 was initiated for the construction of Government Girls Middle School in the district of Aurangabad and 2.32 acres was/were proposed to be acquired; (ii) the 0.75 decimals of the land of the petitioner was also part of the said acquisition process; (iii) so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned, it remained litigated and on 04.02.1994 order came from competent Civil Court. Meanwhile, the government went ahead and constructed the school at a different place at Dharnidhar Road which is one kilometer away from the present land; (iv) the petitioner agitated before the respondents between the year 1994 to 2014 for: a) the payment of compensation; b) failure to do so, to release the land from acquisition; (v) on 16.07.2004, the Collector, Aurangabad made recommendation to ‘the Department’ for the release of the land; (vi) on 31.07.2004, the Director, Land Acquisition, directed the Collector, Patna that the land can be returned after an enquiry and getting an undertaking from the land owner that they will not claim any damages; (vii) this followed the letter no. 93 dated 09.10.2006 by which it wanted reply from the institutions of the district whether the land is required for any purpose or not; (viii) however, nothing happened thereafter; (ix) the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 5894 of 2017 (Sunil Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors); (x) this Court directed the State respondents to take decision vide an order date 16.05.2025. (xi) the respondents rejected the claim on 29.10.2025; (x) aggrieved the present writ petition; 46. In C.W.J.C. No. 5894 of 2017 which was earlier filed by the petitioner, disposed of on 16.05.2025 , it was recorded in paragraphs 4 to 11 as follows: 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that it included a piece of his ancestral land recorded as follows: Khata No. 26, Khesra No. 307, Thana No. 560, Aurangabad (Area-0.75 decimal). It is the further case of the petitioner that the land always remained in his peaceful physical possession and the revenue receipts were also continuously issued in his favour. 5. The contention is that 'the School', however, came to be constructed at a different place at Dharnidhar Road, Aurangabad and the land in question remained unused, 6. The further stand of the petitioner is that the letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 issued by the State of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna records that if the acquired land remains unused, the same can be returned to the land owners. The said letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 read as follows:- 7. The contention as explained/submitted by the learned Senior Counsel is that since they were in continuous peaceful physical possession of the land in question and the State of Bihar never took it back nor they got/ received any compensation, the authorities were regularly approached, persuant thereto, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad vide his office letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004 addressed to 'the Department' informed that the amount has not been received by the original land holder and the representation has been received by his son (the petitioner herein). 76 dated 16.07.2004 addressed to 'the Department' informed that the amount has not been received by the original land holder and the representation has been received by his son (the petitioner herein). It has been further informed by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Aurangabad that the land is not needed as 'the School' building has come up at other place, the direction of Education Department is not required in this connection for the release of the land and in that background, steps can be taken for its release under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). 8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite the said positive communication by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad and repeated representations by the petitioner, the decision has still not been taken by 'the Department'. 9. He submits that later, in the year 2006 also, under the joint signature of the Collector, Aurangabad, the Additional Collector, Aurangabad as well as District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad vide memo no. 93 dated 11.10.2006 , a direction was given to put a notice on the offices of the District Collectorate, Civil Court, Zila Parishad, Nagar Parishad as also the Sub- Divisional Office as to whether the land is required for any other public purpose by either the State Government Departments, Corporations or Central Government Undertakings or not. (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) 10. He submits that even thereafter, no such proposal came and in that background, it is clear that the unutilized land which is still in the family's physical possession, a decision is warranted from the side of the respondents which they have failed to do till date. 11. In support of the claim of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to an order of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 with special reference to para 33.7. which reads as follows: 33.7. The Right of Conclusion 33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquistion process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. The Right of Conclusion 33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquistion process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the property, or its beneficiary's right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of Article 300-A. 47. Following the disposal of CWJC No. 5894 of 2017, the petitioner preferred representation which came to be rejected on 29.10.2025 and read as follows: (i) as the land was acquired by the Education Department, its opinion is/was necessary; (ii) accordingly, an opinion was sought for from the Education Department which opined vide information dated 20.09.2025 that it needs playground, some classrooms and toilets for the girls school; (iii) the land cannot be released as Education Department has shown need; (iv) ‘the 2013 Act’ is not applicable in the present case; (v) accordingly, the representation was rejected. 48. While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, though the respondents took note of the letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 which talks about return of the land to the land owner, if it is not required by any government agency, on the ground that now they have come up with a proposal dated 20.09.2025, returning it as such may not be possible on this ground. 49. 123 dated 12.01.1979 which talks about return of the land to the land owner, if it is not required by any government agency, on the ground that now they have come up with a proposal dated 20.09.2025, returning it as such may not be possible on this ground. 49. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents utterly failed to take note of the fact that: (i) school stands constructed at a different location; (ii) physical possession of the land of the petitioner was never taken and it remained in his continuous physical possession; (iii) the Collector, Aurangabad made recommendation way back in the year 2004 (16.07.2004) for the release of the land; (iv) the Director, Acquisition vide its letter dated 31.07.2004 in principle gave nod for release of the land with condition; (v) the query made by Collector, Aurangabad resulted into no response from the government agencies so far as its use is concerned; (vi) meanwhile, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth for short ‘the 2013 Act’) came into existence wherein section 24(2) records that where an award has been prepared and five years or more has elapsed but physical possession not taken nor payment/compensation made, the proceeding shall deemed to have lapsed and appropriate government if chooses shall initiate proceeding of such acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of ‘the 2013 Act’. 50. This Court has further taken note of the facts that: (i) earlier writ petition was disposed of on 16.05.2025; (ii) petitioner preferred representation on 28.05.2025; (iii) as 'the Department' failed to act in three months stipulated in the order, a contempt petition was filed; (iv) only thereafter, pursuant to query, a proposal came from the Education Department on 20.09.2025 about the need to construct playground/classroom/toilets; (v) the writ petition content shows that it is more than one kilometer away from the girls school, is in a densely populated area and the travel time from the existing land to the school is approximately fifteen minutes; (vi) even then, if at all the government feels that the land is needed, it will have to resort to initiate proceeding under 'the 2013 Act'. 51. This Court has further taken note of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s order passed in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra) wherein para no. 51. This Court has further taken note of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s order passed in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra) wherein para no. 33.7 deals with the Right of Conclusion wherein it has been recorded that the enumeration of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation but also in taking over the actual physical possession. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not completed. 52. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was granted Land Possession Certificate upto the year 2025. In that background, if at all the respondents wanted the land in question as lately, such stand has been taken, the only recourse is to initiation of fresh proceedings under ‘the 2013 Act’ and not otherwise. 53. So far as the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) case cited by the respondent is/are concerned, the Bombay High Court in Sakharamn Govinda Kadam (supra) took note of the aforesaid order wherein it has been observed that the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is a recording of memorandum or panchnama by the Land Acquisition Officer, in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them that would constitute taking possession of the land. 54. However, the document that has been made part of the record of the counter affidavit neither has the signature of the Land Acquisition Officer nor any witness. It is actually signed by the S.D.O., P.W.D. Thus, the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) cannot come to its rescue. 55. In that background, the order passed by the respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna and communicated vide memo no. 1733 dated 29.10.2025 under the signature of Director, Acquisition, Bihar stands quashed. The award relating to the Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 1972-73, so far as the petitioner is concerned is declared to have lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of ‘the 2013 Act’. The State government if so want can initiate fresh proceedings for the acquisition of the land in accordance with ‘the 2013 Act’ if it is really serious about construction of the playground and toilets beside classrooms for the girl students more than one kilometer away from existing school. 56. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No cost.