2017 Supreme(Raj) 2190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
M.N. Bhandari, J.
SMS Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 11938 of 2016
Decided On : 07-07-2017

Headnote:

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 – Section 72 – Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 – Section 52 60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 6 11 18 – Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 – Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990 – Lapse of Acquisition – By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the acquisition of the land measuring 19098 square yards – The prayer is to declare acquisition to have lapsed as per section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – The further prayer is to declare the constructed building on the aforesaid land was not part of acquisition and if court holds otherwise then declare it to have lapsed – The respondents be restrained to take any action and to restore the possession – The notice under section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 has also been challenged – Held, The lapse of the acquisition has been claimed for 19098 square yards of land which includes the land where structure exists – Court is considering the case regarding vacant land as well as of structure separately – In view of the above, Court find locus of the petitioner company to challenge the action of the respondents for the structure/building – It is more so when, deemed lapse of the acquisition has been claimed in reference to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 for the structures/building – So far as the vacant land measuring 19098 square yards is concerned, it remained under their title thus locus to challenge the action of the respondents or to claim deemed lapse cannot be questioned – The issue about locus of the petitioner company is decided accordingly – Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would apply if initiation of the acquisition proceedings are under the Act of 1894 followed by an award under section 11 five years prior to enactment of the Act of 2013 – In the instant case, award was passed on 19th October, 1993 thus it was five years prior to coming into effect the Act of 2013 – The Notification under Section 52(2) followed by Notification under Section 52(1) were issued under the Act of 1959 thus initiation of the acquisition proceedings was not under the Act of 1894 – In any case, Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would have no application in the instant case as initiation of the acquisition proceedings is not under the Act of 1894 and it cannot be taken even by deeming fiction – In view of the admission of giving possession of the vacant land on 02nd November, 1993, claim of the petitioner company about their physical possession on the vacant land remain in contradiction – When the acknowledgment above taking over possession has been made, the arguments in reference to the requirement of the notice, etc. remains of no consequence – In view of the above, the claim of physical possession on the land of the petitioner company on the vacant land is not made out –It is, however, a fact that the possession of structure/building was not taken, which is even reflected in the memo – The petitioner company was even issued notice under Section 72 of the Act of 1982 acknowledging their possession on the structure/building on the area consists of 400 square yards – It may be by holding them to be trespasser but possession of the petitioner company on the structure/building stands proved – In the light of the discussion of the issues framed by this Court, it comes out that the petitioner company has filed this writ petition but applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 on acquisition initiated under the Act of 1959 has not been accepted – Thus, the claim of deemed lapse for the vacant land as well as structure/building cannot be accepted so as the challenge to the notice under Section 72 of the Act of 1982 – It is also held that the physical possession on the vacant land measuring 19098 does not exist, rather, as per the admission of the petitioner company itself and "memo", the possession was taken by the respondents – The issue of physical possession of structure/building has been decided in favour of the petitioner company and, therefore, deemed lapse for it alone could have been accepted but Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 having not been applied to this case, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be accepted – Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed – Petition Dismissed