SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 202

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6392 of 2003
Decided on : 01-03-2013

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 300-A - Amendment Act - Section 4(5) - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Section 4 - Payment Compensation – Enquiry - Acquisition in pursuance of any notice given sub-section of section of principal Act before the commencement of this Act may be made after such commencement and such acquisition and no action taken or thing done (including any order made agreement entered into or notice given whether before or after such commencement, in connection with such acquisition shall be deemed to be invalid merely on grounds referred in clause or any of them - Notwithstanding anything contained in clause of sub- section no declaration section principal Act in respect of any land for acquisition of which notice under subsection of section of principal Act has been given before commencement this Act shall be made after the expiry two yeas from the commencement of the said Act –Held, Case as noted above preliminary notification Section was issued After lapse of about one fine morning state government issued declaration under Section without complying with the mandate of Section and in that declaration it was stated that it has invoked its powers conferred under Section with Section Act and dispensed with the provisions of Section state government intended to hold and complete the inquiry Section it could have been done in few months - Court in and Others Court was concerned with questions whether it was mandatory for special tribunal or the special court to call for report Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of case under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) for short Land Grabbing and whether it was mandatory for the special tribunal or special court to publish a notification in the gazette notifying of cognizance case Act - case and has no application at all -Having regard to clear and unambiguous mandate Section Amendment Act that declaration Section Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice under Section has been given before commencement of Amendment Act shall be made after the expiry of two years from commencement Amendment Act it has to be and we hold that preliminary notification which was followed by notice Section before the commencement of Amendment Act has lapsed and does not survive since declaration Section has been made much beyond the time limit prescribed in law - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.:- The compulsory acquisition of the land admeasuring 4 bigha and 2 biswa comprised in Khasra no. 1013 at Dungarpur (Rajasthan) is the subject matter of this appeal by special leave. The appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition of the above land in the High Court. They failed before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench.

2. The two questions that arise for consideration are :

(i) Whether preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, “1953 Act”) issued on 01.05.1980 has lapsed since declaration under Section 6 of that Act was made on 19.03.1987 after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 (for short, “1981 Amendment Act”).

(ii) Whether invocation of power of urgency and dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A after 7 years of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1953 Act are legally sustainable?

3. The above two questions arise from these facts: on 01.05.1980, the state government issued a preliminary notification under Section 4 that the subject land was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, construction of bus stand. The state government required and authorised Land Acquisition Officer (SDO), Dungarpur to enter upon, do survey and all other acts necessary to ascertain whether land was suitable for such public purpose and enquire into and ascertain the particulars of the persons interested in such land.

4. On 19.03.1987, a notification was issued under Section 6 of the 1953 Act. By that notification the state government also invoked its powers conferred under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the 1953 Act and dispensed with the provisions of Section 5-A.

5. An important event occurred between 01.05.1980 and 19.03.1987. The State Legislature following the Ordinance promulgated by the Governor amended the 1953 Act by the 1981 Amendment Act. Effective from 27.06.1981, by the 1981 Amendment Act, Section 6 of 1953 Act was amended and the following proviso in Section 6 was inserted:

“Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notice under section 4, sub-section 5, given after the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of giving of such notice:”

6. Section 5 of the 1981 Amendment Act provides for validation of certain acquisitions. Sub-sections 1(b) and (2) thereof, which are relevant for the present controversy, read as follows :

“S. 5. Validation of certain acquisitions.—

(1) (a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) any acquisition in pursuance of any notice given under sub-section (5) of section 4 of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act may be made after such commencement and no such acquisition and no action taken or thing done (including any order made, agreement entered into or notice given), whether before or after such commencement, in connection with such acquisition shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the grounds referred to in clause (a) or any of them.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub- section (1) no declaration under section 6 of the principal Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice under subsection (5) of section 4 of the principal Act has been given before the commencement of this Act, shall be made after the expiry of two yeas from the commencement of the said Act.”

7. The above acquisition was challenged in three writ petitions before the High Court. One of these writ petitions was filed by Laxman Lal and Manohar Lal. Both these petitioners are dead and now represented by their legal representatives who are appellants herein. The challenge to the acquisition was laid on diverse grounds but none of the grounds persuaded the Single Judge and all the three writ petitions were dismissed by a common





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top