Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Yogendra Kumar Purohit, JJ.
Gattani Resorts (P) Ltd. and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 296 of 2009, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 697 of 2007, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1038 of 2007, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 176 of 2008, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 747 of 2008, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 901 of 2008, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 51 of 2009, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 170 of 2009, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1995 of 2011.
Decided On : 30-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. R.N. Mathur Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Ballani Mr. Vikas Balia Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat Mr. Deelip Kawadia a/w Ms. Aditi Moad, Ms. Renuka Bohra
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Panwar Sr. Advocate & AAG assisted by Mr. Vinay Soni, Mr. Manish Patel, AAG, Mr. Manish Shishodia Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, Mr. Ankur Mathur

The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to quash notifications under the Land Acquisition Act due to lack of urgency and procedural non-compliance, allowing fresh objections.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Section 4(1) and Section 6 read with Section 17(4) - Notification for land acquisition issued for expansion of university - Notification quashed due to lack of urgency and procedural lapses - Fresh objections permitted to be raised by landowners. (Paras 8, 10, 16)

(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 56(4) - Amendment and repeal of previous act - Time limits for issuing notifications clarified, with stay periods excluded from computation. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a common order regarding land acquisition for university expansion, challenged due to procedural irregularities and lack of urgency.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's order quashing the notification under Section 17(4) and allowed fresh objections to be submitted.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the urgency clause and the procedural compliance in land acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the invocation of urgency under Section 17 was unjustified and that the notification was quashed due to procedural lapses.

Result: Appeals disposed of with directions for fresh objections.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

All the instant special appeals arise out of a common order dated 10.04.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4929/1994 & other connected petitions, and therefore, the present appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

1.1. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts, as pleaded in one of the Special Appeals being D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 296/2009, are being taken for the present analogous adjudication.

1.2. Since in the above-numbered DBSAW No.296/2009, which has been preferred against the common impugned judgment, so far it operates, in the aforementioned S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4929/1994, the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University has been arrayed as a party respondent, therefore, though the University also has preferred some of the above-numbered special appeals, the 'Mohan Lal Sukhadia University' shall henceforth be referred to as 'respondent-University', in the present judgment.

1.3. These appeals have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

SAW No. 296/2009 (preferred by the Gattani Resorts (P) Ltd.):

(i) this appeal may kindly be allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.4.2007 may kindly be set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with cost throughout.

(ii) Any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted to the appellant.

(iii) Cost be awarded in favour of the appellants."

SAW No. 1995/2011 (preferred by the University):

a) This Special Appeal may kindly be allowed with cost throughout and

b) Impugned order/judgement dated 10/04/2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside; and writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed; and

c) Any other relief, direction that Hon'ble Court may feel just and proper in facts and circumstances of the case in favor of appellants, may kindly be passed."

2. Brief facts as placed before this Court by Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Hemant Ballani; Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat; Mr. Deelip Kawadia with Ms. Aditi Moad; and Ms. Renuka Bohra, appearing on behalf of the appellants, are that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1953') was issued on 03.10.1981, in order to acquire land for expansion of the respondent-University, whereafter objections were filed by the land-holders covered under the said notification, in terms of Section 5A of the Act of 1953 in the year of 1982, and report dated 28.05.1982 was thereafter forwarded to the State Government and subsequently, a notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 (4) of the Act of 1953 was issued on 19/24.02.1982 by the State Government, while considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer which was not published in the official gazette.

2.1. However, before publication of the above-said notification, a writ petition being SBCWP No. 255/1982 came to be filed against the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1953, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.11.1993, being premature, since the declaration under Section 6 had yet to be made. During pendency of the said writ petition, stay order was passed on 02.03.1982, resultantly, the acquisition proceedings remained pending.

2.2. During pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, vide Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, an amendment has been incorporated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894') was brought into force, and the Act of 1953 came to be repealed thereby; thereafter, the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1987') came into forc