Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.C.AGRAWAL,A.K.MATHUR
HIMMAT JAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
D. B. C. W. P. 3666 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/05/1993
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - SCHEME - MASTER PLAN - IMPROVEMENT ACT - LAND ACQUISITION ACT - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR SUB-CITY CENTRE - VALIDITY - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHEME - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - VALIDITY - ACQUISITION UNDER IMPROVEMENT ACT AND LAND ACQUISITION ACT - COMPETITION - VALIDITY OF ACQUISITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's application for conversion of land was rejected by the authorities. Petitioner challenged the rejection and also challenged the acquisition proceedings and notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. The rejection of the petitioner's application for conversion of land was legal and in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (Improvement Act) and the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (Land Conversion Rules of 1981). 2. The acquisition of land for the Sub-City Centre Scheme was for a public purpose and was valid. 3. The extension of time for implementation of the scheme by the State Government was valid and did not lead to arbitrariness. 4. The amendment to the Improvement Act, which allowed for retrospective operation of the extension of time, was valid and did not take away any fundamental right or was arbitrary. 5. The State Government had the power to acquire land for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, and it was not necessary to have a scheme framed under the Improvement Act. 6. The Improvement Act and the Land Acquisition Act did not compete with each other, and the State Government could acquire land under either Act depending on the circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for conversion of land was legal and in accordance with the provisions of the Improvement Act and the Land Conversion Rules of 1981. 2. Whether the acquisition of land for the Sub-City Centre Scheme was for a public purpose and was valid. 3. Whether the extension of time for implementation of the scheme by the State Government was valid and did not lead to arbitrariness. 4. Whether the amendment to the Improvement Act, which allowed for retrospective operation of the extension of time, was valid and did not take away any fundamental right or was arbitrary. 5. Whether the State Government had the power to acquire land for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, and it was not necessary to have a scheme framed under the Improvement Act. 6. Whether the Improvement Act and the Land Acquisition Act competed with each other, and the State Government could acquire land under either Act depending on the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rejection of the petitioner's application for conversion of land was legal and in accordance with the provisions of the Improvement Act and the Land Conversion Rules of 1981, as the land had been proposed for acquisition by the State Government. 2. The acquisition of land for the Sub-City Centre Scheme was for a public purpose and was valid, as the purpose of the acquisition was for the good of the public. 3. The extension of time for implementation of the scheme by the State Government was valid and did not lead to arbitrariness, as the State Legislature had conferred power on the State to extend time for implementation of the scheme. 4. The amendment to the Improvement Act, which allowed for retrospective operation of the extension of time, was valid and did not take away any fundamental right or was arbitrary, as the amendment was to operate retrospectively and the State Legislature had the power to make such an amendment. 5. The State Government had the power to acquire land for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, and it was not necessary to have a scheme framed under the Improvement Act, as the Improvement Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and the State Government could acquire land for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The Improvement Act and the Land Acquisition Act did not compete with each other, and the State Government could acquire land under either Act depending on the circumstances, as the Improvement Act would apply only to cases of improvement in accordance with the scheme, but where the State Government finds that the acquisition could be more effectively made by notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, it will have a right to do so.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500.00 (Rs. five hundred only) to be payable to the State Government.
K. C. AGRAWAL, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Himmat Jain for the following main reliefs :-" (1) that the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 13-9-1988 (Annex. 5), the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 31-1-1986 (Annex. 3) and that of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Conversion-II), Udaipur dated 3-1-1985 (Annex. 2) be quashed; and necessary permission be given to the petitioner for conversion of the land; and (2) that the acquisition proceedings and the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed. "
( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as the Land Conversion Rules of 1981) for conversion of his land situated in old Araji No. 200/ 1, 200/ 2 and 203 (New Araji No. 34) at village Sawinakhera Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur in form No. A as prescribed under the Land Conversion Rules of 1981 before the Subdivisional Officer (Land Conversion-II), Udaipur. The petitioner also submitted the fee required for obtaining conversion.
( 3 ) THE application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Conversionii), Udaipur by the order dated 3-1-1985. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur submitting that the rejection of the application made by him for conversion was illegal. The Revenue Appellate Authority observed that since the petitioner had not submitted any objection, the land cannot be allowed to be converted. The appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 31-1-1986.
( 4 ) AGAINST the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 31-1-1986, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue. In the second appeal, the petitioner contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority had, on extraneous and wrong reasons, rejected the application for conversion. He contended that the Rule 8 of the Land Conversion Rules of 1981 required the application to be forwarded to the Local Body. The Appellate Authority had not done so and, as such, it failed to perform the duty assigned to it under the Land Conversion Rules of 1981.
( 5 ) THE Board of Revenue agreed with the authorities below it and dismissed the second appeal by the judgment dated 13-9-1988.
( 6 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the rejection of the application made by the petitioner for conversion of land was illegal and against the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Improvement Act) and the Land Conversion Rules of 1981. Therefore, the orders of all the three authorities i. e. the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Conversion-II), Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue were illegal and liable to be quashed.
( 8 ) WE are unable to find any merit in the submission made by the petitioners counsel. The Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal after examining the orders of the authorities below it and finding that the land had since been proposed by the State Government for acquisition, the relief with regard to conversion could not be granted to the petitioner. There was no point in granting the prayer for conversion when the land was likely to be acquired for public purpose. Permitting the petitioner to convert the use of land was not likely to serve any purpose. Consequently, as there was no material before the authorities of the Revenue Department that the use of the land was likely to be changed, the prayer made in the application for conversion was correctly rejected.
( 9 ) IT is settled that the mandamus would not go when it appears that it would be futile in its results. It is also settled that the mandamus would not
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
