Honble VERMA, J.–The only question which arises in the present writ petition is whether the respondents are competent to take over the possession of part of Khasra No. 35 situated in village Bhojpura, Jaipur near Jaipur as deemed to have been acquired without issuing any notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was applicable at the relevant time and also whether if by mistake or otherwise by in-advertance compensation is determined for the land in question in the award even though not acquired, which could not have been so determined for the reason that the land was never so acquired by any notification and the said compensation having been paid to the petitioner or his predecessors, which compensation as now admitted and not denied, as a matter of fact, stands refunded to the respondents and the respondents having accepted back the above said compensation, are still entitled to say that the land measuring 3 Bighas 10 Biswas out of Khasra No. 35 which Khasra number measured 3 Bighas and 16 Biswas has vested in the respondents and whether that the petitioner can be deprived of the fruits and the utilisation of this land which was never acquired in accordance with law and whether the petitioner can be deprived of his property without authority of law?

(2). The admitted facts are that Shri Chotte Lal son of Jhuntha Ram Mali was holding a Khatedari right of Khasra Nos. 34 measuring 2 Biswas, Khasra No. 35 measuring 3 Bigha 16 Biswa, Khasra No. 36 measuring 6 Biswa, Khasra No. 37 measuring 10 Biswa and Khasra No. 277 min. measuring 10 Biswa situated in village Bhojpura Tehsil Jaipur presently known as Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. Vide notification dated 13.5.1960 issued u/S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as published on 9.6.1960 at page 151 of the Gazette certain land was acquired. The intention was show to acquire the aforesaid khasra numbers of Khatedari of the father of the petitioner along with other land mentioned in the notification for the purpose of constructing a stadium and the High Court building etc.

(3). While issuing notification u/s 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act which provisions were applicable at the relevant time, the notification was issued for acquisition of 6 Biswas of land only of khasra No. 35 and not for the remaining land of this khasra. Even though certain other land was also acquired of the petitioner, but the present writ petition is confined only to 3 Bigha and 10 Biswa of land in khasra No. 35 and, therefore, the acquired number of other khasra numbers are not being mentioned here being not relevant for the decision of the present case.

(4). Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 9.1.1964. However, the Land Acquisition Officer who had passed the award determined the compensation for whole of the khasra No. 35, i.e. 3 Bigha and 16 Biswa which admittedly he was not entitled to determine for the reason that there was no notification u/s 4 or 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act in regard to the major part of Khasra No. 35 measuring 3 Bigha and 10 Biswas.

(5). This very matter in regard to some other khasra numbers which were not acquired for not having been notified but still included for compensation was taken up in the High Court by number of land owners in Durga Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), Mangla vs. State of Rajasthan (2), Satya Narain vs. State of Rajasthan (3), and Ishwar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (4), which were the writ petitioners on the fact that the State was not authorised to take over the land or part of the land in khasra number for which no notification u/s 4 or 6 had ever been issued. A Single Bench of this court had held that for the reasons that the land in question had not been notified in the notifications by the State Government, therefore, the land could not have been acquired under the impugned notifications and that such land did not vest in State. Notifications of acquisition in the above said judgments were the same as in the present writ petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document