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

2024 Supreme(SC) 1189

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Urban Improvement Trust – Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Vidhya Devi And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14473 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 12116 of 2010) With Civil Appeal No. 14474 OF 2024 (Arising out Of SLP (C) NO. 6226 of 2010) With Civil Appeal No. 14475 of 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23316 OF 2010) And Civil Appeal No. OF 14476 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 23313 of 2010)
Decided On : 13-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, AOR Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Manish Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Mehta, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Shefali Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR


Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - Sections 52(1), 52(2), 52(7), 60A - Land acquisition - Notification quashed due to improper service of notice and failure to pay compensation within stipulated time - The court emphasized the necessity of following due process in land acquisition to protect property rights. (Paras 72, 73)

(B) Delay in filing writ petitions - The court held that while delay is a factor, it should not bar justice in cases of patent illegality affecting fundamental rights. (Paras 46-52)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a common judgment quashing land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust for lands owned by the respondents, citing improper notice and delayed compensation.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to quash the acquisition was upheld due to procedural irregularities and failure to comply with statutory requirements.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the notification under Section 52(1) and the legality of compensation determination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failure to serve individual notices and the delay in compensation payment rendered the acquisition invalid, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in property rights.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

INDEX

A.

FACTUAL MATRIX

B.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT

C.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

D.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

E.

ANALYSIS

(i)

On the question of delay in filing the writ petitions before the High Court

(ii)

On the validity of the notification for acquisition under Section 52(1)

(iii)

On the question of whether the compensation was determined and paid lawfully to the respondents

F.

CONCLUSION

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the question of law involved in all the captioned appeals is the same, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 29.10.2009 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 669/1999 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2171/1998 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 673/1999 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No, 2204/1998 respectively whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued a notice under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (the “RUI Act”), published in the official gazette on 01.07.1976, to one Ram Narain, proposing to acquire land bearing Survey no. 229 measuring 2 bighas & 2 biswas and Survey no. 229/287 measuring 2 bighas & 18 biswas situated in Village Nangli Kota, Tehsil & District Alwar (the “Nangli Kota lands”). These parcels of land were owned and possessed by Yogesh Chandra Goyal, Radheyshyam Goyal, Manohar Lal, Krishan Murari, Omprakash Goyal, Suresh Chandra Goyal and Ashok Kumar Goyal, the sons of Ram Narain as well as Kamla and Kesar Bai, the daughters of Ram Narain.

5. The appellant and the State Government also sought to acquire the land bearing Survey no. 141 measuring 3 bighas and 9 biswas situated in Village Moongaska, Tehsil and District Alwar (the “Moongaska land”), owned and possessed by Ram Narain, Radheyshyam, Manohar Lal and Yogesh Chandra Goyal.

6. Ram Narain was the khatedar of the Nangli Kota and Moongaskar parcels of land. He passed away in 1973. The Nangli Kota land was inherited by his seven sons and two daughters. As regards the Moongaska land, the same was purchased on 25.07.1966 by four individuals jointly by way of different sale deeds. Ram Narain’s portion of the Moongaska land was inherited by his seven sons and two daughters after his demise. However, the names of the two daughters were not included in the list of legal heirs submitted by the seven sons of late Ram Narain and did not become a part of the mutation records until much later on 22.03.1985.

Acquisition proceedings for the Nangli Kota lands

7. The acquisition proceedings for the Nangli Kota lands came to be initiated on 01.07.1976 when the Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a notification under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act. Accordingly, Ram Narain was informed about the intention to acquire the Nangli Kota lands.

8. In response to the said notice, the legal heirs of late Ram Narain that is, his seven sons, appeared before the Officer on Special Duty, Urban Improvement Trust (the “OSD”) from time to time and sought time to submit proof regarding their ownership of the said land.

9. On 28.04.1977, the OSD sent a letter to the State Government under Section 52(3) of the RUI Act recommending for issuance of notification under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act.

10. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act on 16.06.1977 and the same was published in the official gazette on 23.06.1977 showing the names of all seven sons of late Ram Narain. In such circumstances, a

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