SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Raj) 1292

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.K.Keshote, K.S.Rathore, JJ.
Gajadhar @ Gangadhar and Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 137 of 1988; 181 of 1988; 13 of 1988; 14 of 1988; 95 of 1988; 674 of 1988.
Decided On : 30-05-2003

Advocates:
For the Petitioners Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 137 of 1988 and 181 of 1988:S.C. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 Samiti Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 137 of 1988 and 181 of 1988:K.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 137 of 1988 and 181 of 1988:Inderjeet Singh, Advocate.
For the Petitioners Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 13 of 1988:K.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 13 of 1988:K.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 13 of 1988:Inderjeet Singh, Advocate.
For the Petitioners Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 14 of 1988, 95 of 1988 & 674 of 1988:R.P. Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 14 of 1988, 95 of 1988 & 674 of 1988:K.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State Appearance in Writ Pet. No. 14 of 1988, 95 of 1988 & 674 of 1988:Inerjeet Singh, Advocate.

Headnote:

(a) Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, Section 4(1)(5) -validity of Notification -it was caused that the mistake in the notice regarding the name of the petitioner if not causing any prejudice to the petitioner, the latter can not be objected the validity of the circular - it was contended that the notice was not served to the LRs of "V" , as specified in the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer -It was contended that the issuance of notice on the name of dead person lose the validity of siuch notice-"V" and "R" recorded as khatedar tenant-later the revenue record corrected on 6.3.1986-the notification as per section 4(1) of the act justified-the names of khatedar can not invalidate the by the correction made later on-such notice was issued to LRs of "V"-the name of dead person can not defeat the purpose of the notice as per law - validity of notification-the person whose name the transfer had made, filed objection of the same-it was held that the petitioner can not raise the objection that the services of notice was not made to him.

(b) Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, Sections 4(1), 6 and 17(4) - the acquisition of land for extension of new mandi yard held within the definition of the word "public purpose" - Invoking of urgency clause challenged-As per section 5 the petitioner did not challenged it on mala fide ground- the state govt has no material on record-it was considered that in invoking the clause u/s 17(4), the state govt. has not applied its mind the points raised by the counsel of the petitioner were with demerits.

(c) Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, Section 6 [As amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 as also by Rajasthan Amendment Act of 1987] -the declaration made in the prescribe time period-it was considered that the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987 is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

1. - In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged one and the same Notifications issued by the respondents State of Rajasthan. The first Notification is dated 19.7.1984 issued under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 and the Second Notification is dated 12.11.1987 issued under Section 17(4) & (6) of the aforesaid Act. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987') and thus, all these writ petition are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are taken up from Writ Petition No. 181/88. The petitioners are the recorded 'khatedar tenants' and in cultivatory possession of the agricultural land bearing khasra no. 96 (present no.184) measuring an area of five bighas and seven biswas situated in Gangapurcity. It is stated that dense abadi around some khasra numbers of land proposed to be acquired is there. Adjacent to khasra no. 98 there is a 'kabristan land'. In khasra no. 97 also there is a 'kabristan', though it is not so recorded in the revenue record. Khasra no. 89 is a public way which goes to the side of khasra no. 96 belonging to the petitioners. This way goes upto khasras nos. 86 and 87.

3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gangapurcity (for short, 'the respondent Samiti') is stated to be in existence in the Gangapurcity for a long period. A mandi yard consisted about 125 shops in the center of Gangapurcity is there. A space for the mandi yard which is there in existence is sufficient. It is alleged that the grain mandi is well planned and all the facilities are available to the farmers who used to bring their agriculture produces there for sale and for the purchasers also. The petitioners submitted that still the respondent samiti has instructed to construct a new mandi yard. The planning of construction of new mandi yard is as old as of 1966 but it has not been implemented. It is averred that in the year 1981, 85 bighas of land was acquired for construction of the mandi yard for the respondent samiti near the agriculture land of the petitioners. The respondent samiti has constructed a mandi yard there consisting of 120 shops provided all other facilities required but still the mandi has not been shifted to this mandi yard. It appears that the respondent samiti required a piece of land for further extension of the new mandi yard and for that purpose the acquisition proceedings of the land were started by the Government of Rajasthan for 67 bighas and 10 biswas of land. The Government of Rajasthan iss led a Notification dated 19.7.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this notification the petitioners agriculture land measuring five bighas and seven biswas comprising in khasra no. 96 (present Khasra No. 184) has been included. Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapurcity was appointed as a Land Acquisition Officer by the State Government under that Notification. The petitioners have come up with the case that the Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapurcity issued a notice under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1953 in the name of Vali Prasad son of Shri Madan Lal and Ramesh Chand son of Shri Madan Lai vide Letter dated 15.3.1989. Shri Vali Prasad stated to have died much before 15.3.1985. Thus Ramesh Chand son of Shri Madan Lal received that notice. It is stated that the legal heirs of Vali Prasad were not served any notices under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1953 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Gangapurcity. The petitioners submitted the reply to the notice aforestated. Therein the following objections were taken;

(1) The purpose for which the land is being sought to acquire, is not a genuine and the public purpose.

(2) Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapurcity is not competent to issue notice under Section 4(5) of the Act, 1953 and to hear the objections and decide the same. He cannot be the Land Acquisition Officer because he is the Administrator of the























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top