JUDGMENT 1. Gopal Modi and 45 others have filed these writ petitions challenging the notice issued to them under the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act for making entry in their fields for developing their land. As all the writ petition are of identical nature, and there is common question of law involved I have accepted the joint prayer of the learned counsel for the parties to hear and decide them by one common judgment. 2. All the petitioners claim to be agriculturists. They are all having their agricultural land in the District of Bundi and Kota. 3. Under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation the name Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a Corporation by 'Rajasthan Land Development Corporation' has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act vide notification No. 6(6) 11 Agri/CAD/74 dated 12-12-1974, which is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal with hold power, subject to the provisions of the aforesaid Act. to that name acquire and dispose of property and to contract and may by that name sue and be sued. The purpose for constituting such Corporation is for the execution of Project relating to land development with a view to prevent damage to the land and loss in agriculture productivity and to secure optimum utilisation of land and water resources in the State of Rajasthan and for other matter connected therewith for identical thereto. 4. According to the petitioner, the principal business of the Corporation as laid down under Section 17 is the execution of the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Different kinds of business which the Corporation may carry on and transact, are specified in Section 17 of the Act itself. Section 18 of the Act authorises the Corporation for the purpose of carrying out its functions under the Act to issue and sell bonds and debentures and other securities carrying interest and further is also empowered to borrow money and accept deposits from the Central Government the State Government, Government, any Bank or financing institution and with the approval the State the Act from a corporate body and from any other person. Section 19 of the Act provides that the Corporation may receive remuneration for its services, including cost of execution work, if any, incurred by the Corporation wider this Act and accept gifts, grants subsidies, donation and/or any other benefits from any if person. Section 20 of the Act lays down that the State Government by notification in the official Gazette may sanction any project specifying the area entrusted to the Corporation and the works to be executed by the Corporation in such areas. Under section 21 of the Act, it is provided that the Corporation may execute, the works itself or have the works executed through the appropriate departments of the State Government or through any other agency. 5. The petitioners have further alleged that the Act empowers its officers with certain powers. Section 23 of the Act empowers the Corporation to authorise any person after giving a land-holder reasonable notice to enter upon his land holding and carry out surveys and investigations and all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with execution of the project. It is also provided in sub-clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act that if the Corporation continues to occupy land holding for the purpose of execution of works for a period beyond 3 months, the Corporation shall compensate the concerned land- holder for any loss of income from the land-holding which he would have otherwise not suffered. Such compensation shall be determined in any enquiry to be held by the Collector after giving both the Corporation and the land- holder an opportunity of being heard. 6. The case of the petitioners is that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-clause I of Section 23 of the Act, the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation authorised the Chief Technical Officers, Assistant Engineer and the Engineering Subordinates to enter upon the land-holding of the land holders to carry out surveys and investigations and all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with the execution of works in any project area entrusted to the said corporation by the State Government from time to time vide notification No. F. 11 (13) Admn/75/3885 dated 13th August 1976 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated the 19th September, 1976. 7. 7. The Government of Rajasthan authorised certain officers in respect of the Chambal Command Area Development and to carry out surveys and investigations and all such works that may be necessary in connection with the execution of the work. The notification (Annexure 1) reads as under:- "NOTIFICATION NO. F. 13(32) CAD/75 Dated the 7th February, 1978 S.O. 783. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (Act No. 17 of 1975), the Government of Rajasthan hereby authorises the following officers and servants in respect of Chambal Command Area Development Project, Kota to enter upon the land holdings and to carry out surveys and investigations and all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with the execution of works:- 1. The Commissioner, Chambal Command Area, Kota. 2. The Collectors, Kota and Bundi. 3. The Additional Chief Engineer, C.A.D., Kota, his Executive Engineer and T.A., Assistant Engineer, attached to his office. 4. Additional Commissioner, Chambal, Kota. 5. Officer on Special Duty (Credit). 6. Joint Registrar (Co-operative) and his T.A. 7. Project Director (LDP), Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers attached to the office of the P.D. (LDP). 8. Project Director (Extension), Deputy Director (Pre-Extension). 9. Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Engineering Subordinates attached to Drainage Circle. 10. Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Engineering Subordinates attached to Canal Circle. 11. Additional Collector (CAD), Kota, Additional Collector (Col.) Kota and Bundi, Tehsildars attached to the Project and Land Record Officer. (Published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-C dated 23rd February, 1978 Page Number 498)". That the impugned notices Annexure 2 were then sent to the petitioners. The notice Annexure 2 in case of petitioner Gopal Modi is reproduced below for ready reference:- "Notice for taking temporary occupation of land under section 2 3(l ) of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975. No. Dated the Name of the Scheme-O.F.D. Works. To Gopal, Gendilal, Badrilal and ................ R/o Abu, Caste Mali, K. Patan Whereas the Command Area Authority,'Area Development Commissioner is satisfied that for the purpose executing the scheme of Land Development in.... it is necessary that land in village Bundi Road-I K. Patan Panchayat Samiti K. Patan, District Bundi, particulars of which as per A.D.M. Colonisation Kota/ Addl. To Gopal, Gendilal, Badrilal and ................ R/o Abu, Caste Mali, K. Patan Whereas the Command Area Authority,'Area Development Commissioner is satisfied that for the purpose executing the scheme of Land Development in.... it is necessary that land in village Bundi Road-I K. Patan Panchayat Samiti K. Patan, District Bundi, particulars of which as per A.D.M. Colonisation Kota/ Addl. Colonisation Bundi letter No .............dated..........are given below should be taken into occupation temporarily : No. Description of land Survey Khasra No. Area in he/Bigha Name of land holder Nahri Doyam 636 0.307 1 III/3 Gopal Gendilal 637 6.237 38 II/9 6545/401/4 Badrilal & Maluglal Now, therefore, you Shri/Shrimati/Kumari Gopal and Badrilal son wife/ daughter of Shri Abu village K. Patan Tehsil K. Patan, District Bundi is/are hereby given notice that after one month from the date of the service of the notice lands specified above shall be entered upon to carry out surveys, investigation and all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with the execution of the scheme. Authorised Officer, Assistant Engineer Keshorai Patan, Bundi. No. 3241/22.10. Dated, the Copy forwarded to : 1. The Regional Manager Rajasthan Land Development Corporation, Kota. Assistant Engineer Keshorai Patan (Bundi) 8. The petitioners' case is further that Section 24 of the Act enumerates that for the purpose of execution of the work, every land-holder other than those, who execute works in their respective land-holdings within the period and in the manner specified by the Competent Authority, shall pay the proportionate cost of works on issue of notice to him by the Corporation. 9. The petitioners submit that there exists a number of trees and residential houses on the land, which is the subject matter of the petition. No provision has been made to compensate the petitioners for destruction/or cutting the trees and house in consequence of the entry and execution of scheme. The petitioners further submitted that such an action as well as law violates the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 10. The petitioners were served with a notice purported to have been issued under Section 23 (1) of the Act. A copy of the said notice is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure II. The petitioners have already started sowing operations prior to the coming of the knowledge of the said impugned notice. 10. The petitioners were served with a notice purported to have been issued under Section 23 (1) of the Act. A copy of the said notice is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure II. The petitioners have already started sowing operations prior to the coming of the knowledge of the said impugned notice. The Officer under whose signatures the said Notice has been issued has directed the petitioners that from this Rabi Season, the land specified above, shall be entered upon to carry out survey, investigations, and executing and doing all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with the execution of the scheme. 11. The petitioners have challenged the above notice on various grounds, and they alleged that the notice Annexure II is illegal, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and is violative of the petitioners' fundamental and legal rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India, 1950. 12. The respondents have controverted the above allegations and they have submitted that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, as none of the grounds mentioned in the writ petition is tenable in law. 13. Though, initially the petitioners come out with a case that they would challenge the 44th amendment of the Constitution. and, therefore, in one of the cases a reference was also made to Division Bench, but later on when those cases came up for hearing, the petitioners' counsel submitted that they would not like to press and challenge the validity of the 44th amendment of the Constitution. 14. However, they submitted that the provisions of Section 23, 24 and 30 are ultra vires and illegal and they violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner as contained in Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 15. Mr. Jain also submitted that the notification by which the entire area comprising Kota-Bundi districts has been entrusted to the Corporation for land development, cannot be treated as a notification giving valid sanction. Section 20 (l) of the Act reads as under : "20, Sanction of projects.-(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, sanction any project, specifying the area entrusted to the Corporation and the works to be executed by the Corporation in such areas." 16. Section 20 (l) of the Act reads as under : "20, Sanction of projects.-(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, sanction any project, specifying the area entrusted to the Corporation and the works to be executed by the Corporation in such areas." 16. On a careful consideration of the above notification giving sanction, I am of the view that Section 20(1) of the Act has been complied with. No special form has been provided for granting sanction. In the very nature of things, the sanction cannot contain a project report or the details of the project which are going to be undertaken by the corporation and only indication can be given. Similarly, it is not necessary to mention all the khasra numbers or the names of the villages. I am convinced that the State Government has applied its mind while granting sanction and there is no infirmity which vitiates the sanction Mr. Jain has also challenged the validity of Section 23 & 24 of the Act as being violative of Articles 14& 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In order to appreciate the challenge to the validity of the Act and these particular provisions, it would be first necessary to read the statements of objects and reasons of this Act. which are in the following terms : "Statement of Objects and Reasons: 1. Finance of command area development projects with an investment totalling to 212.00 crores of rupees over six year period has recently been negotiated with the World Bank for Rajasthan Canal and Chambal areas. Similar projects are expected to be taken up for other major canal commands in the State in due course. Land development for satisfactory management and on catchment basis involving all the concerned farmers and optimum use of irrigation and development of modern agricultural technology, are some of the features of these projects. With a view to enable smooth and effective implementation of these land development projects by ensuring compulsory participation of all concerned land holders in these projects, the World Bank insisted for the setting up of a statutory land development corporation by 18th day of September, 1974 of a pre condition of' effectiveness of the World Bank Agreement. 2. As the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was not then in session. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation was established by the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Ordinance, 1974. 2. As the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was not then in session. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation was established by the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Ordinance, 1974. The Bill seeks replace this Ordinance by the Act of' the State Legislature. The following are the salient features of the Bill- (i) establishment of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation to carry out the programme of land development on scientific lines, with its share capital of Rs. 10.00 crores, of which shares of Rs. 2.00 crores will be issued in the first instance. The share capital is to be subscribed in 50:50 ratio by the State Government and the Central Government. (ii) some of the important functions of the corporation are (a) to provide funds in bulk to the command area authorities for execution of land development works; (b) to help cultivators to obtain ordinary loan from commercial banks for development of their lands; (c) to provide special loans to cultivators who are unable for valid reasons to obtain ordinary loans from these banks; (d) to undertake directly or through other agencies programmes of on farm development in areas assigned to it; (e) to ensure participation of the land holders in the development programmes on his land by requiring him either to undertake specified development works or to pay to the Corporation cost of such work to be executed by it; (iii) provision for stoppage of supply of irrigation water if the land holder fails in or obstructs carrying out of land development programme; (iv) provision for effective machinery to take suitable action against the defaulter of the corporation in execution of land development work according to sanctioned plans and for settlement of claims and disputes arising from execution of land development programmes. 3. It is hoped that the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation will be able to provide a satisfactory answer to various difficulties encountered in securing the optimum utilisation of land and water resources and in achieving the maximum agricultural productivity in the State." The object is to enable smooth and effective implementation of the land development within stipulated period commencing from 1974 and to be completed up- to 1982. It contemplates compulsory participation of all concerned land holders in these projects. It contemplates compulsory participation of all concerned land holders in these projects. It is a time bound programme and "on-farm development" cannot be allowed to be impaired and the programme can be warded by the orthodox land holder, who is not normally willing for land reforms even though they are in their interest. 17. Mr. Sharma submitted that in order to facilitate the programme of land development, the Act provides for grant of ordinary and special loans to the land holders by incorporating section 26 and 27 in the Act. It means that where the land holder has title to the land he is not to bother about the finances, rather the finances will be arranged by the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation, through the participating commercial banks and even if the land holder does not have a title to the land, but he happens to be in the possession of the same, provision of special loan has been made. The only purpose is that the 'on-farm development works' do not suffer. Having solved the problem of finance, the officers of the Corporation proceed to make a scheme and thereafter the scheme having been published in terms of section 20, read with section 17 of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, the Corporation proceed; to execute the scheme. Mr. Sharma pointed out that the cost of works is assessed on the basis of a particular catchment and thereafter the cost is shared proportionately by the land holders of that particular catchment. The maximum cost of work chargeable from the land holder is Rs. 2750/- per hectare but the proportionate cost of works is generally much below this maximum limit as has been observed after the scheme has been completed. There is no profit motive-but larger good of the nation is only motive. This cost of Rs. 2750/- per hectare was estimated in the year 1974 and no rise has made in it even when over all prices have increased since 1974 to the extent of 40% or so. Here also Government grants subsidy to the extent of 25% and 33% to the small and marginal farmers. 18. A study of the data and statistics provided by the department-respondent would show that the proportionate cost of work is quite reasonable and within the paying capacity of the farmers. Here also Government grants subsidy to the extent of 25% and 33% to the small and marginal farmers. 18. A study of the data and statistics provided by the department-respondent would show that the proportionate cost of work is quite reasonable and within the paying capacity of the farmers. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Corporation has already spent Rs. 7.24 crores and implemented the scheme development in an area of 27798.08 hectares covering 11407 farmers. 19. I am inclined to accept the contention of the respondents, that the challenge to the validity of law on the ground that the farmer cannot be compelled to develop his land, stands concluded by the (I). Relevant portion of observations made in Rawatisi Ram's of case reads as under : "It is not necessary to ask the land holder to execute the work himself and on his refusal only the Corporation will have the jurisdiction to undertake the land development works. The competent authority is not bound to call upon the land holder to execute the work." 20. It is not without significance that under Section 24 of the Act, the Collector has got powers to adjudicate allegations about the excessive charge if the land holders feels, that the cost of works is more. Sub Clause (4) of Section 24 of the Act provides that any dispute relating to a notice shall be adjudicated in an inquiry to be held by the Collector. Then if the O.F.D. works have not been properly completed then section 32 provides an effective answer and the Collector has been given power to compel the Corporation to rectify the defects or complete the unfinished work. The farmer can have grievances only with regard to the cost of work which he may allege to be excessive or the quality of work which he may allege to be defective. 21. The powers to be exercised by the Corporation are therefore, neither arbitrary nor excessive. They cannot be termed as discriminatory, capricious and uncanalised or unbridled. In (2) Mohd. Suleman v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1965 Cal . 312 the Calcutta High Court observed as under : "Individual rights have to yield to larger interest of the community. 21. The powers to be exercised by the Corporation are therefore, neither arbitrary nor excessive. They cannot be termed as discriminatory, capricious and uncanalised or unbridled. In (2) Mohd. Suleman v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1965 Cal . 312 the Calcutta High Court observed as under : "Individual rights have to yield to larger interest of the community. So long the legislature enacts the policy and purpose of enactment with certainty, action taken by the functionaries cannot be deemed to be arbitrary, un-canalised or unguided". In (3) K.L. Gupta V. Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1968 SC 316 their Lordships of the Supreme Court in somewhat similar situation observed as under: "Immense pain was taken by a vast number of people and it was their combined effort and skill which went to the making of the development plan, no question of acting arbitrarily." 22. It would thus be seen that development plans for the general community are always to be considered in comparison to individual inconvenience. I have already held in the case of (4) M/s Chand Behari Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6/1980, decided on March 14, 1980) , that if a legislation brings `cheers' to million and billion of people and the community, at large, then such social welfare legislation intended to improve the case of society as a whole, cannot be struck down as violative of constitutional provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 31, simply because they bring `tears' to a few when by the constitution, we are committed to achieve essential socialist goal in order to relieve the people from poverty and adversity to improve the standard and living of poor and down trodden, weaker section of the society. The legislations are bound to create some inconvenience or heart burning to a few who have got vested interest in status quo and who are "status quo walas." The dynamic and pragmatic approach in interpreting the constitution for achieving the social and essential objects of the constitution is to be accepted by this Court. 23. The legislations are bound to create some inconvenience or heart burning to a few who have got vested interest in status quo and who are "status quo walas." The dynamic and pragmatic approach in interpreting the constitution for achieving the social and essential objects of the constitution is to be accepted by this Court. 23. May be that the entire amount accounted to be utilised for the development of the land, is being not so utilised by some pilferer of the corporation, which is a melady not only for this particular development but the country as a whole but by that alone, we cannot declare the law as unconstitutional. 24. I am convinced that the policy of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act is for a planned development of the agricultural land of the tiller, in which they are made to participate by compulsion and also required to pay, is a progressive legislation meant for emancipation and uplifting of the farmers with the and of subsidy and it cannot be treated as violative of Article 14, 19 & 31 of the Constitution. A temporary deprivation of the possession for a period of 19 days or so is not deprivation of property as such, but only share of compulsory permissive action where the officials of the Corporation can enter in the field for the execution of the work. 25. In (5) Katra Education Society V. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1307 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held almost in similar circumstances that the temporary occupation for such purposes cannot offend Article 31 of the Constitution. In view of the above discussion, I would refrain from entering into controversy of applicability of Article 3l-A(b) of the Constitution and whether it is prospective or retrospective. I am convinced that this Act suffers from no infirmity and invalidity and is not violative of Articles 14, 19 & 3I of the Constitution. 26. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the impugned notice is invalid, because it is not in a language which the uneducated cultivators could understand, but is in English. The Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act (hereinafter to be called as `the Act) as originally passed was in Hindi by the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, and the notice purported to be issued under the aforesaid Act in English is not reasonable and not intelligible. The Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act (hereinafter to be called as `the Act) as originally passed was in Hindi by the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, and the notice purported to be issued under the aforesaid Act in English is not reasonable and not intelligible. He referred to the English Translation of the Act printed in the Act of 1975 (Rajasthan Local Laws Supplement, p. 622) which has already been extracted above.Section 2 3(l) of the Act Local reads as under : "23. Power to enter upon a land holding:-(1) Such officers, servants and other persons as may be authorised by the Corporation or the State Government in this behalf, may at any time, after giving a land holder reasonable notice, enter upon his land holding and carry out surveys and investigations and all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with execution of any project." 27. According to this, the notice should be reasonable. Mr. Jain emphasised the phrase, "After giving reasonable notice" contained in sub-clause (I) and argued that in a case where a village cultivator is concerned in agricultural land in Rajasthan, giving of notice to him in English is not only unreasonable but negation of the concept of reasonableness, because he would never understand what is the meaning of notice, and he would be deprived of the property by temporary occupation of that land. 28. Mr. Jain's contention is that not only in Rajasthan Hindi is the official language, but even otherwise by a series of judgments the Supreme Court has emphasised that the notice must be such that the citizen to whom it has been given or served upon should understand its implications. 29. Hon'ble the Justice Hidayatullah, as he then was, with Justice A.N. Ray and Justice I.D. Dua in (6) Chaju Ram V. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1971 S.C., p. 263 . observed as under : "It is absolutely necessary that when the Court is dealing with a detenu who cannot read or understand English language or any language at all that the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as possible in the language he understands so that he can avail himself of the statutory right of making a representation. To hand over to him the document written in English and to obtain his thumb impression on it in token of his having received the same does not comply with the requirements of he law which gives a very valuable right to the detenu to make a representation which right is frustrated by handing over to him the grounds of detention in an alien language." Again in (7) Hari Kishan v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1962 SC 911 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the grounds of detention are not communicated in the language of the detenu and they are communicated in English, then there is no communication and sufficient compliance of the requirement of Article 22(5). Their Lordships did not agree with the High Court in its conclusion that in every case communication of every ground of detention in English so long as it continues to be the official language of the State is enough compliance with the requirement of the Constitution. Their Lordships observed : "To a person who is not so conversant with the English Language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person." 30. The Supreme Court quashed the detention order solely on this ground. It would be significant that even though the District Magistrate alleged in that case that the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were translated by him orally in Hindi and explained to the detenu, yet it was found that this was not correct and the communication in English was found to be not enough communication to enable him to make his representation. In (8) Hadibandhu Das V. District Magistrate, Cuttak and another AIR 1969 SC 43 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not consider the plea of the State that the grounds of detention in English were explained in the language of the detenu and held that it amounts to denial of right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making representation against the order. In para 6, their Lordships observed as under:- "The grounds in support of the order served on the appellant ran into fourteen typed pages and referred to his activities over a period of thirteen years, beside referring to a large number of court proceedings concerning him and other persons who were alleged to be his associates. Mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him the translation in script and language which he understood would in our judgment, amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order." My attention was also invited to the provisions of Rajasthan Official Language Act, 1956, wherein section 3 & 4 of this Act read as under : "3. Hindi to be official language for certain purposes of the State.- Hindi written in Devnagri script shall, with effect from such date as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, be the language used in respect of the State. other than those mentioned in section 4, and different dates may be appointed for such different purposes. 4. Official language for Bills, Act, etc.-Subject to the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution of India and notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 the language of (i) all Bills introduced in the State Legislative Assembly, (ii) all Acts passed by the State legislature, (iii) all Ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India, and (iv) all orders, rule, regulations and bye laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any Central or State Law, shall be either Hindi written in Devnagri script or English: Provided that in every such case where the English language is used, there shall be published, under the authority of the State Government, as soon as may be a translation thereof in the Hindi language written in Devnagri script." 31. It is not in dispute that both sections 3 and 4 are in force in Rajasthan. The impugned notice, was issued by the functionaries of the Agriculture Department of the State of Rajasthan and the work of land development is also being done by different agencies under their department. 32. It is not in dispute that both sections 3 and 4 are in force in Rajasthan. The impugned notice, was issued by the functionaries of the Agriculture Department of the State of Rajasthan and the work of land development is also being done by different agencies under their department. 32. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners in these cases are cultivators living in small villages of Rajasthan, and they are not literate enough to read, write or understand English language. 33. Undoubtedly, the work undertaken by the respondents is praise- worthy, because they want to improve the land for facilitating better cultivation with proper irrigation facilities, roads, water channels, levelling of the area and making the fields regular, where they are irregular areas. I am also not impressed, by the submission of Mr. Jain that the World Bank, which according to Mr. Jain has got the domination of the first world wants to enslave the people of this country by the process of giving financial aid and in any case I am of the view that this controversy is foreign to the law courts. I am not concerned whether the intention of the World Bank in giving loan for development of agriculture land was pious, motivated by philanthrophic considerations or it was a partisan aid with strings, because that was for the legislature to consider it before they passed the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act. Mr. Jain should find out some other forum for making this grievance and I am, therefore, not entering into that controversy. 34. Prima facie, the object of the Act appears to be to make an invest- ment of about 21.00 crores of rupees of the World Bank for Rajasthan Canal and Chambal Area by financing the Commission or development projects. The land development is to be done for satisfactory management involving all concerned farmers and obtaining the use of modern facilities. 35. The entire scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder appears to be to develop the land of the agriculturists and for that purpose to occupy the land temporarily for a few months and then give it back to the cultivator in a developed condition and for doing so make a nominal charge. It would thus be seen that it is beneficial for the tenant and for tillers of soil. 36. It would thus be seen that it is beneficial for the tenant and for tillers of soil. 36. Howsoever this pious object should be brought home to the tillers by a valid notice. This should be in a language which they may understand and the minimum can be that it should be in Hindi, if it cannot be in the local dialect of that area, though the later will be more beneficial, fulfilling the requirement of section 23 of the Act. 37. It is common ground that this was not done, because presumably the officers who were functioning treated it as a routine matter to send notices, whether the tiller of the soil is able to understand it or not. It is not the case of the respondents that these notices were translated into Hindi and orally explained to the petitioners, and they were made to understand its implications. As a matter of fact, Mr. Jain made a grievance that the word used in the notice is difficult to understand to a senior lawyer of his cadre. The two words shown to me are "OFD and Catchment". It required to be explained by the officer, who was personally present, as to what is the meaning of -OFD' arguments of Mr. Jain, therefore, cannot be brushed aside that a cultivator in a distant village of Bundi and Kota could hardly understand what are the implications of this notice in English language, and if he could not understand, how can it be said that the notice was `reasonable', u/s 23 of the Act. 38. A series of authorities have been extracted above and they no doubt relate to Preventive Detention Act and other laws in which the grounds of detention are required to be communicated to them, so that they may under- stand and make effective representation. But, can it be said that when the Legislature used the words `reasonable notice', it would not mean that they must be given such notice which is intelligible enough to be understood and if necessary to be replied and contested. The reasonableness of the notice being 'sine-qua-non' of proceeding under this Act, it wall have to be appreciated that before making any entry into the land, the respondent should comply with it strictly and stringently. The reasonableness of the notice being 'sine-qua-non' of proceeding under this Act, it wall have to be appreciated that before making any entry into the land, the respondent should comply with it strictly and stringently. If that is so, the dictum of law and the principles enunciated by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the above three cases squarely apply to the present case also. 39. Undoubtedly, the legal rights of a citizen are effected when he is temporarily deprived of the property, may be ultimately for his own benefit. It is immaterial that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the question was of liberty, and here before this Court the dispute and matter relates to the property. 40. True, liberty is a fundamental right and property is no more a fundamental right after 44th amendment, but it still continues to be a legal right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. A temporary deprivation of right to use property may or may not be actionable, but when the law contemplates that some facts must pre-exist and some jurisdictional acts which constitute the bed rock of the executive action should be performed initially, then they assume fundamental importance under the rule of law. That being so, the submissions of Mr. Jain that in all these cases the respondents did not comply with the mandatory requirement of giving a reasonable notice u s 23 appears to be fully justified. It is not without significance that in the above extracted portions on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, their Lordships have emphasised the necessity of using the same dialect which a detenu understands to make the communication real. 41. It is indeed a matter of concern and anxiety that when the Official Language Act has been enacted in Rajasthan in the year 1956, more than a quarter of a centuary ago, the executive is still serving the notice to cultivators of the agriculture land in remote villages and Dhanis in English language. This only shows the indifference, carelessness and recklessness with which some of the officers are functioning, making the Official Language Act it dead letter and a dead statute to be kept in the shelves of almirahs. This only shows the indifference, carelessness and recklessness with which some of the officers are functioning, making the Official Language Act it dead letter and a dead statute to be kept in the shelves of almirahs. Even if the Official Language Act would not have made Hindi as the official language of Rajasthan, then also in a given case where it is established that the citizens were not aware of English language, it would have been the requirement of reasonableness to make them understand and aware in their own language and the giving of notice in English would have been of no use u/s 23 of the Act. 42. It appears that the functionaries of the respondents never attached any serious and real importance to the requirement of this notice, because they thought it to be a project, which is to be undertaken for the benefit of the people and the World Bank's money is being utilised for the uplift of the tillers. It is not for this court to decide whether there was justification for it, but assuming they had best of intention, it will have to be held that it is not only necessary that the act intended to be done should be fair, legal and just, but it is further necessary that it must be done in a manner, by the method, and by adopting the means which are equally fair, just, proper, reasonable and according to law. That way alone, the rule of law can be maintained. A legal object achieved by illegal device or illegal method or illegal means would be equally illegal and would not save the action from being actionable in a law court. 43. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that according to the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, it is not possible to sustain and declare valid notice Ex. 2 in all these cases, which is in English language, wholly unknown to the petitioners and due to which they never understood the contents of notice, its implications, its meaning and the object. That being so, the respondents cannot be allowed to enter the fields or to send their officers or their employees in order to execute the development works. 2 in all these cases, which is in English language, wholly unknown to the petitioners and due to which they never understood the contents of notice, its implications, its meaning and the object. That being so, the respondents cannot be allowed to enter the fields or to send their officers or their employees in order to execute the development works. This, of course, would not debar them from serving a valid notice in Hindi in proper form intelligible enough again and proceed with the work now, because since I have quashed the impugned notification, it is not necessary now to deal in details, the other grounds connected with the defects in the form of notification. However, it would be convenient to mention them at least, so that while giving second notice, the respondents can be careful enough not to repeat any mistakes, omissions or commissions. It was argued by Mr. Jain that the notice was given in the sowing season and, therefore, it will deprive the petitioners of their harvest for the whole year. The respondents can now take notice of this objection and serve a notice at such a time when the cultivators have harvested the crop sown by them. 44. Yet other objection taken was, that it has not been signed by the competent authority. Though I am not deciding this objection it would be advisable that the respondents, themselves, would check up which is authority competent to sign the notice under Section 23 clause (1) and ensure that the competent authority signs it. 45. Mr. Jain argued that the notice under Section 23 (1) should specify all such works and time as may be necessary in connection with execution of any project. Here again, I must mention that a notice cannot give details of the project because in the very nature of things, a notice cannot be a catalogue and an encyclopaedia, but it can only give hint on the name of the project or working. The respondents would keep all this in view while giving fresh notice. 46. I am not impressed by the submissions of Mr. Jain, that notice would also mention the time and the date and the names of the employees who would enter the land with details of the works that, each one of them would carry out. This is not intended by the law. 47. 46. I am not impressed by the submissions of Mr. Jain, that notice would also mention the time and the date and the names of the employees who would enter the land with details of the works that, each one of them would carry out. This is not intended by the law. 47. Equally futile argument is that first, the petitioners should be given option to execute the works under Section 20 (2) of the Act. In the very nature of things, when the entire project covers hundred of fields and planned development includes construction of roads, water channels irrigation nalis and regularisation of the boundaries of the fields and their levelling. individual development by individual cultivator cannot achieve that object. The cultivator in such circumstances should submit to community development plan of the respondents in his own interest and the objection by him is misconceived and based upon mis-apprehension. 48. The result of the above discussion is, that whereas on all other grounds the petitioners have failed to substantiate and make out a case for interference, but on one important ground, the notices were not given in Hindi- language and were given in English language, the petitions deserve to succeed. 49. All the petitions are, therefore, accepted to this limited extend only. The parties will bear their own costs. Mr. Sharma prays that it should be made specifically clear that the Corporation would be entitled to enter the premises after giving valid notice in Hindi. The prayer deserves to be accepted with the only rider that while doing so they would ensure that the tillers of the soil reap their harvest and cut the crop properly and take the agricultural produce out of the fields before any actual entry is made. *******