1991 Supreme(Raj) 748
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Darshan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5395 of 1989.
Decided On : 27-06-1991
1. A notification under Section 4 of the 1953 Act could not be issued after the repeal of the Act in 1984. 2. A declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act could be issued within a period of one year only after issuance of notification under Section 4 of that Act.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - RAJASTHAN LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - REPEAL - LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1984 - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF 1953 ACT - ISSUANCE AFTER REPEAL - VALIDITY - DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF 1894 ACT - ISSUANCE AFTER EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 - VALIDITY - URGENCY CLAUSE UNDER SECTION 17 - INVOCATION WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged notifications dated 16.2.1987 and 7.11.1989 issued by the Government in agricultural department for acquisition of his land. Earlier acquisition proceedings were dropped in 1980. Fresh notification was issued in 1987 under the 1953 Act, which was repealed in 1984. Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued after expiry of one year from the date of notification under Section 4.
Finding of the Court:
1. Notification dated 16.2.1987 issued under the 1953 Act was without jurisdiction and authority as the Act was repealed in 1984. 2. Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act could be issued within a period of one year only after issuance of notification under Section 4 of that Act. Declaration issued after expiry of one year was unlawful. 3. Allegation of malafide against the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was vague and no enquiry could be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification dated 16.2.1987 issued under the 1953 Act was valid after the repeal of the Act in 1984? 2. Whether the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act issued after expiry of one year from the date of notification under Section 4 was valid? 3. Whether the allegation of malafide against the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was vague and no enquiry could be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the 1953 Act ceased to be effective with effect from the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which made the 1894 Act applicable to the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the notification dated 16.2.1987 issued under the 1953 Act was without jurisdiction and authority. 2. A declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act could be issued within a period of one year only after issuance of notification under Section 4 of that Act. The declaration issued after expiry of one year was unlawful. 3. The allegation of malafide against the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was vague and no enquiry could be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The notifications dated 16.2.1987 and 7.11.1989 were quashed. The respondents were allowed to take fresh proceedings for acquisition in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notifications dated 16.2.1987 and 7.11.1989 issued by the Government in agricultural department for acquisition of the land of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has stated that he has got agricultural land in khasra Numbers 47, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 in village Ramganjamandi district Kota. He is also holding 88 years lease in respect of Abadi land No. 53, 54 and 55 measuring in all 8 biswas. These lands are actually situated in Rosli (Ramganjmandi). The land of the petitioner was earlier acquired under Notification dated 31.5.1978 issued under/section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 1953 Act). The petitioners filed objections against the acquisition and stated that a large tract has already been acquired for Krishi Upaj Mandi and there was no necessity for extra land. No hearing was given to the petitioner but a declaration under Section 6 of the 1953 Act was issued. However, further proceedings of acquisition were not taken because Secretary of Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board wrote to the State Government on 5.4.80 that for another 15 years new market yard Ramganj mandi will not require additional land for expansion. The 'State Government considered the matter thereafter and dropped the acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification dated April 16, 1980 which was published in Rajasthan Raj Patra dated April 23, 1980. The earlier notification dated 12.6.1978 was cancelled.
3. The case of the petitioner is that Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Ramganjmandi was bearing ill-will towards the petitioner and therefore, he wrote a letter to the Secretary Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board on 10.1.1985 that the decision to drop the acquisition may be withdrawn. The State Govt. issued a fresh Notification under section 4 of 1953 Act on 16.2.1987. After issuance of this notification, no public notice was issued by the State Government Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act). After more than 2 years, the petitioner received a notice dated 3.4.1989 from the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ramganjmandi who intimated the petitioner that his land falling in Khasra No. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 was going to be surveyed on 10.4.1989. He filed a representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19.4.89 stating that the proceeding of acquisition has already lapsed and there was no justification for taking further action Without having regard to the representation of the petitioner, the State Government has issued a notification dated 7.11.1989, which has been published in daily newspapers on 5.12.1989. By this notification a declaration and order under section 6 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of 1894 Act has been issued. Along with this notification declaration under section 6 of 1894 Act, a notification dated 7.11.1989 has also been issued for acquiring petitioner's land in Khasra No. 47.
4. The petitioner has stated that after State Government had dropped the acquisition proceedings vide its notification dated April 23, 1980, he had applied for conversion of 881. 11 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No. 53, 54 and 56 in village Rosli (Ramganjmandi) his application was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Ramganjmandi. A lease deed dated 6.3.84 was issued, the petitioner deposited development charges and with the permission of the Municipal Board Ramganjmandi he has raised constructions and has developed a dairy farm cum Orchard. He has invested more than a lakh of Rupees in construction of houses, installation of pumping sets and making provision for irrigation facilities.
5. The petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that no notification Under Section 4 of 1953 Act could be issued in view of the repeal of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 by virtue of amendment dated 24.9.1984 made in the Central Land Acquisition Act, 189
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
