Judgment Shrimal, J.-This special appeal is directed against the old D/-23-7-1974 of the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby he dismissed the writ Petition No. 389 of 1974 wherein the validity of the order dated March 13, 1973 issued by the State Government under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act No. XXIV of 1953) was challenged and it was also prayed that the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-divisional Officer). Bharatpur be prohibited from taking further action in the matter.

2. By a notification dated March 13, 1973 the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan under Section 4 (1) of the Act No. XXIV of 1953 proclaimed that the lands specified in the schedule attached to the said notification were needed or likely to be needed for public purpose, that is, for General Engineering Works, Bharatpur. The notification further stated that under Section 4 (1) of the Act No. XXIV of 1953 the Government was pleased to authorise the Tehsildar, Bharatpur, to discharge the functions envisaged by Section 4 (1) and submit a report under Section 4 (4) of the Act No. XXIV of 1953. The respondent No. 3, Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-divisional Officer), Bharatpur, issued a notice-Annex. 1, under Section 4 (5) (1) of the Act No. XXIV of 1953 on April 30, 1973. The appellant filed objections-Annex. 2, dated May 22, 1973. The respondent No. 3 fixed July 20, 1973 for recording the evidence, but owing to general strike of the clerical staff , the case was adjourned to August 31, 1973. On this date the petitioner-appellant filed an application for determining certain preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 to make the enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub-divisional Officer), Bharatpur, refused to consider the objections piecemeal. Instead he decided to dispose of the preliminary objections along with others at the time of submitting a report to the State Government. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant moved this Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenged the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of Act No. XXIV of 1953 on the grounds: (a) that the State Government failed to apply its mind to the facts of this case before issuing a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Although Section 4 as amended had made a significant departure from the old phraseology and has purposefully substituted the word ‘consider’ in place of the word ‘appear’, yet in the impugned order dated March 13, 1973 issued under Section 4 (1) the State Government used the word ‘appear’ and thus the notification is bad in law; (b) that the purpose of acquisition has not been particularised and is wholly vague; (c) that the provisions of Section 38

(2) of the Act were not complied with; (d) that the land was being acquired for Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd., but in the notification dated March 13, 1973, it has been mentioned that it was being acquired for public purpose, that is, for General Engineering Works, Bharatpur which is not a Company in itself , (e) that the provisions of Chapter VII were not complied with; and (f) that Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956 was not complied with.

3. The State Government and the respondent No. 6, the Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd., contested each and every ground raised by the petitioner.

4. Thelearned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide his order dated July 23, 1973; hence this special appeal.

5. Thelearned Counsel, Mr. Mukatbeharilal Bhargava, appearing for the appellant, has challenged the order of the learned single Judge on a number of grounds, which will be dealt with at seriatim.

6. Thefirst contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Act No. XXIV of 1953 was amended by Act No. XXII of 1966 whereby the present Section 4 was substituted. The effect of the

amendment was that before issuing the order dated March 13, 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document