The acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification under Section 6.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - TIME LIMIT - DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6 - DELAY - VITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - SCHEME/PLAN - ABSENCE - NO VITIATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - EXERCISE OF POWER - JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCRIMINATION - INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 - NOT APPLICABLE - DEAD PERSON'S NAME IN NOTIFICATION - VITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - ORDER 22, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - NOT APPLICABLE - POSSESSION - TAKING OF - MODES - VESTING OF LAND IN STATE GOVERNMENT - LACHES - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:

Writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings commenced under notification issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4. Petitioners contended that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification under Section 6. Petitioners also challenged the acquisition on various other grounds, including the absence of a scheme/plan, discrimination, and the inclusion of a dead person's name in the notification.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification under Section 6. The Court also held that the absence of a scheme/plan, discrimination, and the inclusion of a dead person's name in the notification did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The Court further held that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification under Section 6? 2. Whether the absence of a scheme/plan, discrimination, and the inclusion of a dead person's name in the notification vitiated the acquisition proceedings? 3. Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification under Section 6. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides that a declaration under Section 6 shall be made within three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4. The Court held that the notification under Section 6 was issued after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings were vitiated. 2. The Court held that the absence of a scheme/plan, discrimination, and the inclusion of a dead person's name in the notification did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The Court held that the absence of a scheme/plan is not a ground for quashing the acquisition proceedings. The Court also held that discrimination is not a ground for quashing the acquisition proceedings unless it is invidious discrimination. The Court further held that the inclusion of a dead person's name in the notification did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings, as the name of the owner of the land is not required to be stated in the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 3. The Court held that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The Court held that the petitioners had filed the writ petitions after a delay of 7 years, and therefore, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the notification under Section 4, so far as it related to the subject matter of the writ petitions. The Court dismissed the other writ petitions.

JUDGMENT

1. - The above-mentioned eight writ petitions have been filed to call in question the acquisition proceedings commenced under notification issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.

2. In the notification dated 31-5-82 lands situate in villages Meluni and Gangapur were sought to be acquired for public purpose. A report under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Rajasthan Act was sent by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhilwara, to the State Government. As the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made applicable from 24-9-84, Notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 12-2-87 which was published in the Official Gazette on 5-3-87. The possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to the Municipality, Gangapur for whose benefit the land was acquired. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 4-8-88 which was revised vide order dated 29-12-88.

3. In writ petitions filed in March/April, 1989, various grounds have been stated to assail the acquisition. The main ground in five Writ Petitions Nos. 1092/89, 1109/89, 1108/ 89, 1110/89 and 1111/89 is that no notification under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Act, 1953 or the Act of 1894 was issued in respect of the lands, which are the subject-matter of these writ petitions, and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal and void. It is also averred that no notice for delivery of actual possession was given to the petitioners, and the petitioners are still in possession of the lands. It is further averred that various lands have been left out of acquisition proceedings, no plan was prepared by the Municipality for Housing Scheme in respect of the lands under acquisition, and the lands sought to be acquired are scattered in fragments, which are not useful for a planned development. It is stated that the award was passed on 4-8-88 but it was revised on 29-12-88 without notice to the petitioners.

4. In Writ Petition No. 1077/89 it is averred that in the notification under Section 4 and also in the declaration issued under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 the name of Bhanwarlal was shown, whereas he had died on 13-12-80 i.e. much before the proceedings started, and as such the proceedings which are against the dead person, are null and void. It is also averred that the notification under Section 6 was issued after the expiry of three years, and hence the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The other grounds stated in five writ petitions, have also been taken in this writ petition; that actual possession has not been taken of the land, there was no public purpose for acquisition proceedings, various lands have been left out, the land is in fragments and cannot be used for housing scheme and that the second award has been published without notice. In the remaining two writ petitions, same grounds have been stated.

5. In the reply filed by respondent No. 4 in all the writ petitions it is averred that the writ petitions have been filed after great delay and even after passing the award and, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. It is pointed out that the petitioners have even made applications for reference to the District Court for enhancement of the compensation which amounts to acceptance of the acquisition by them. It is averred that the petitioners have concealed the above facts in the writ petitions and, therefore, on the ground of concealment, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. With respect to the five writ petitions, it is averred that the notification under Section 6 has been issued by the State Government on 5-6-95 which has been made effective from 5-3-87 and, therefore, it is wrong to contend that no notification under Section 6 was issued. In Writ Petition No. 1077/89 it is stated that the factum of death of Bhanwarlal was not recorded in the revenue record, and therefore, the respondents were not aware of his death. It is pointed out

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(Raj) 1230

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTG.L.Gupta, J.Radhey Shyam and etc. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and others - RespondentCivil Writ Petn. Nos. 1077, 1058, 1109, 1092, 1093, 1108, 1110 and 1111 of 1989.Decided On : 16-09-1998

The acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification under Section 6.

Cases Referred (9)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.L.Gupta, J.
Radhey Shyam and etc. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1077, 1058, 1109, 1092, 1093, 1108, 1110 and 1111 of 1989.
Decided On : 16-09-1998