Back
1985 Supreme(Raj) 198
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K.MAL LODHA,S.N.BHARGAV
LAXMI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition 602 Of 1978
Decided On : 09/02/1985
H.M.PAREKH, J.P.JOSHI, N.Khan
The provisions of Sec. 17 (1) and Sec. 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (No. XXIV of 1953) are not applicable to land which is neither waste nor arable land.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY - WASTE OR ARABLE LAND - INTERPRETATION - URGENCY - PUBLIC NOTICE - MANDATORY PROVISIONS - COMPLIANCE - ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977 issued under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (No. XXIV of 1953) (for short the Act) and according to him, the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Kanwar Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1961) 11 Raj 486, is also involved and as such, it should be determined by the Division Bench in the light of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977, issued under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Act, was invalid as the land in question was neither waste nor arable land and the Notification did not mention that the land was waste or arable and that there was urgency to take recourse to the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act. The Court also held that the Notification Ex. 5 under S. 4 (1) of the Act was invalid as it was not published in the vicinity of the petitioners land and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof were void.
Issues: 1. Whether the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977 issued under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Act was valid? 2. Whether the Notification Ex. 5 under S. 4 (1) of the Act was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977, issued under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Act, was invalid as the land in question was neither waste nor arable land and the Notification did not mention that the land was waste or arable and that there was urgency to take recourse to the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act. The Court relied on the decisions in Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1081 and Ishwarlal Girdharilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 870, which held that the land which is intended for building site cannot come under the category of either waste or arable land, and for that there is no authority. 2. The Court held that the Notification Ex. 5 under S. 4 (1) of the Act was invalid as it was not published in the vicinity of the petitioners land and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof were void. The Court relied on the decisions in Khub Chand v. State of Raj. (AIR 1967 Raj 1074) and Collector v. Raja Ram Jaiswal (1985) 3 SCC 1, which held that the publication of the notice in the locality required by the second part of S. 4 (1). is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein; the entire acquisition proceedings, would be vitiated, and the court would interfere in such a situation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification Ex. 5 dt. Mar. 23,1977 and the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977, in so far as they relate to the petitioners land and acquisition proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.
S. K. MALLODHA, J.
( 1 ) A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the writ petition to the Division Bench as it raises the question with respect to the validity of the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28,1977 issued under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (No. XXIV of 1953) (for short the Act) and according to him, the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Kanwar Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1961) 11 Raj 486, is also involved and as such, it should be determined by the Division Bench in the light of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. This is how this writ petition is before us.
( 2 ) THE original petitioners were Narendra Singh, Nahar Singh and Sobhag. Kumari. During the pendency of the writ petition, Narendra Singh died and his legal representatives, who are now petitioners Nos. 1/1 to 1/4, have been brought on record.
( 3 ) A bungalow and vacant land surrounding it was gifted to Rao Raja Narpatsinghji by the former ruler of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. A patta was issued on Aug. 14, 1939 in favour of Rao Raja Narpatsinghji and it was renewed by a new Patta on July 16, 1956 issued under the provisions of the Marwar Patta Ordinance, 1921, which was in vogue at that time. A part of the land covered by the aforesaid Patta was sold by Rao Raja Narpatsinghji to the Government of India and certain buildings have been constructed on the said land. A Notification Ex. 5 dt. Mar. 23,1977, was issued by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act. It was notified therein that the land specified therein which included part of the land in respect of which patta was issued in favour of Raja Rao Narpatsinghji, was required for a public purpose i. e. R. C. P. O. (Defence Department of the Central Government ). The said Notification Ex. 5 was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. Mar. 31, 1977. However, subsequent to that, another Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977, was issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Act. It was mentioned in that Notification that the provision of S. 5a of the Act shall not apply and a declaration was made under Sec. 6 of the Act that the lands mentioned in the said notification were needed for public purpose. The State Govt, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to take the possession of the lands mentioned in the notification after the expiry of 15 days from the publication of the notice under Sec. 9 (1) of the Act. A notice Ex. 7 under Sec. 9 of the Act was issued to the original petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer), Jodhpur on May 19, 1977. After receipt of the notice, they filed objections to the acquisition of their land. The award Ex. 9 was made on Mar. 21, 1978 by the Land Acquisition Officer. He, however, did not award any compensation to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have failed to establish their right, title or interest in respect of the land alleged to be theirs and further that they were not entitled to any compensation for the same. The petitioners submitted an application Ex. 10 for making reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. The reference was made to the District Judge, Jodhpur. However, after making of the award by the Sub-Divisional Officer on Mar. 21,1978, the petitoners filed a writ petition on Sept. 12,1978 seeking to quash the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977; the notice Ex. 7 dt. May 19, 1977 and the award Ex. 9 dt. Mar. 21, 1978. It was prayed that entire acquisition proceedings may be quashed.
( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, it was stated that the validity of the notice Ex. 7 dt. May 19,1977 and the award Ex. 9 dt. Mar. 21, 1978 depends upon the validity or otherwise of the Notification Ex. 6 dt. April 28, 1977 issued under Sec. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 of the Act. A reply was filed to the show cause notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 contesting the writ pe
