Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.L.Joshi
OM PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. 156 Of 1977
Decided On : 08/30/1977
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - DELEGATION OF POWERS - JURISDICTION - BONA FIDES - SUPPRESSIO VERI AND SUGGESTIO FALSI - EX PARTE STAY ORDER - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged notifications issued under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, alleging that the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notifications under Section 6 or Section 17(4) of the Act, and that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the Collector's purported delegation of powers under Section 260 of the Land Revenue Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notifications under Section 6 or Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, as the State Government had not delegated such powers to the Collector under any legislative sanction. The Court further held that the petitioners had obtained an ex parte stay order by suppressing material facts and misleading the Court, and therefore, they were not entitled to any relief on merits.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to issue notifications under Section 6 or Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953? 2. Whether the petitioners had obtained an ex parte stay order by suppressing material facts and misleading the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notifications under Section 6 or Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, as the State Government had not delegated such powers to the Collector under any legislative sanction. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 260(1)(b) of the Land Revenue Act, which does not empower the State Government to delegate its powers to the Collector by a notification issued on the executive side. 2. The Court held that the petitioners had obtained an ex parte stay order by suppressing material facts and misleading the Court. The Court relied on the fact that the petitioners had not disclosed in their petition that the possession of the land in question had been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer by beat of drum, and that construction work had commenced on the land.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners had obtained an ex parte stay order by suppressing material facts and misleading the Court. The Court also held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notifications under Section 6 or Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act.
M. L. JOSHI, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the notifications dated 5th November, 1976 (Annexure 4), dated 16th February, 1977 (Annexure 5), and notice dated 25th March, 1977, (Annexure 6) and further for restoration o the possession of the disputed land, if the petitioners are dispossessed during the pendency of the writ petition.
( 2 ) A joint writ petition was filed, by Om Prakash, Rajendra Kumar, Suresh kumar, Smt Sushila, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Suchitra Devi in respect of Khasras nos. 419, 420, 421, 422 and 423 (old) corresponding to new Khasras Nos. 516, 517, 518, 519 and 520 respectively, admeasuring 3 Bighas 4 Biswas, 5 Biswas, 1 Bigha 7 Biswas, 5 Brwas, and 2 Bighas 8 Biswas respectively. This writ petition when came up for hearing an objection was taken on behalf of the non-petitioners that the joint writ petition was not competent as the petitioners have no common and joint interest in all the Khasras mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thereupon, accepting the objection prayed to permit him to confine the writ petition to Khasras 516/419, 517/420 on behalf of all the petitioners excepting Rajendra Kumar and prayed that Rajendra Kumars name be deleted from the array of the petitioners. This court by its order dated 1st August, 1977, accepted the prayer and directed that the writ petition shall be taken to have been filed in respect of Khasras Nos. 516/419 and 517/420 by om Prakash, Suresh Kumar, Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Suchitra Devi only.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the aforesaid Khasras of land were purchased by them from Sarva Shri Pritam Kumar, Vinay Kumar, Tota Lal, Sunder Lal, Hiralal, parma Lal, Ganeshilal and Jai Kumar and the above mentioned lands have since been mutated in their names. The petitioners aver in the petition that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act) was issued by the State government declaring its intention that the aforesaid lands are needed for a public purpose vide Government notification dated 30-10-1976. Thereafter a further notification dated 7th January, 1977, purporting to have been made under Section 4 (5) (ii) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the land Acquision Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Beawer. This notification was accompanied by the notification A/2 under Section 4 (5) (i) of the Land acquisition Act wherein description of lands in question was shown. By another notification dated 7-1-1977 the petitioners were required to submit the objections against the acquisition of land, if they have any, within a period of 30 days. Yet another notification was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra under the signature of the collector, Ajmer. Under this notification the Collector has declared that the lands in question were required for the purpose of Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and that the is of the opinion that the acquisition of the aforesaid lands is urgently required and so the provisions of Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act are dispensed with. The copy of this notification is Annexure 6. Further a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued which was served on the petitioners on various dates. According to the petitioners the objections were preferred by them but the same came to be rejected by the land Acquisition Officer, Beawer, by his order dated 12th April, 1977. A certified copy of this order has been placed on record and is marked Annexure 7. In this order it has been categorically stated that the possession of the lands in question have been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer by beat of drum. The petitioner, however, in face of this categorical order asserted that he has not been dispossessed and he still re
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
