Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.L.GUPTA
NATHU LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CIV. WRIT PETITION 2174 Of 1989
Decided On : 02/24/1998
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - DISCRIMINATION - [Section 4(1), 5(a), 52 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950] - The court held that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950, and therefore, the Presidential assent was not required for the amendment of Section 52 of the Act of 1950. The court also held that the publication of the notification in the locality was not mandatory and that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950, which required Presidential assent, that there was no publication of the notification in the locality, that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing, and that the land was acquired indiscriminately.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950, and therefore, the Presidential assent was not required for the amendment of Section 52 of the Act of 1950. The court also held that the publication of the notification in the locality was not mandatory and that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950, or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether the publication of the notification in the locality was mandatory? 3. Whether the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 4. Whether the land was acquired indiscriminately?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950, because the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950. 2. The court held that the publication of the notification in the locality was not mandatory because Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, only requires the publication of the notification in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers. 3. The court held that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because the Land Acquisition Officer issued individual notices to the petitioners and gave them an opportunity to file objections and to be heard before sending the report under Section 5(a) to the State Government. 4. The court held that the land was not acquired indiscriminately because the Land Acquisition Officer considered all the objections raised by the petitioners and recommended that only some of the lands notified in the notification under Section 4 be acquired.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions.
G. L. GUPTA, J.
( 1 ) IN the above mentioned seven writ petitions the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 dated 16-5-1988 and the declaration under Section 6. D/- 15-3-1989 has been called in question.
( 2 ) THE facts common to the petitions are that the respondents issued notification, dated 16-5-1988 which was published in Govt. Gazette on 30-6-1988 to acquire the various lands situate in village Devali Fatehpura for Fatehpur Extension Scheme. Respondent Urban Improvement Trust was the beneficiary. The notifications have been assailed on various grounds in the writ petition but Mr. Bhandari confined his arguments to four grounds. It is, therefore, not necessary to mention all the facts. The grounds pressed by Mr. Bhandari are (i) The acquisition proceedings could be undertaken only under Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act and as the Presidential assent has not been obtained for the amendment in Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, the whole of the proceedings are void. (ii) There was no publication of notification issued under Section 4 (1) in the locality. (iii) Opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners. (iv) The land has been acquired indiscriminately as some lands have been left out and only petitionerss land have been acquired.
( 3 ) IN the reply which has been filed only in writ petition No. 2174/89 Nathulal v. State of Rajasthan it has been averred that publication of the substance of the notification was made in the locality and enquiry under Section 5a was held after issuing individual notices to the petitioners. It has been further averred that there was no discrimination in acquiring the land of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this reply may be treated reply in all the writ petitions.
( 4 ) MR. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that Section 52 of the Raj. Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1950 which is special provision for acquisition of land for the Urban Improvement Trust was amended vide Rajasthan Act No. 29 of 1987 but as the Presidential assent was not obtained in respect of this amendment, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. His contention is based on the premises that the land acquisition proceedings shall be presumed to have been initiated under Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act. He urged that the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act are mandatory in nature and since the substance of the notification was not published in the locality, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. His further contention was that the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of personal hearing under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the declaration is void. He placed reliance on the cases of (1) State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak, AIR 1973 SC 2361 (2) Collector (Dist. Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 (3) Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074; (4) Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (1976) 3 SCC 719 : (AIR 1976 C 2095) and (5) Urban Improvement Trust v. Balveer Singh, 1984 Rajasthan LR 398 : (AIR 1985 Raj 71 ).
( 5 ) ON the other hand Mr. Udawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the acquisition proceedings have been undertaken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore there is no relevancy of Section 52 of the Act of 1950. He contended that Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is the Central enactment prevails over the State legislation and all the acquisition proceedings now are initiated under the Act of 1894. His further contention was that all the formalities required under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were complied with and full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before making report under Section 5-A.
( 6 ) MR. Kawadia, learned counel for the respondent No. 3 contended tha
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
