Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 438 (RAJ)

Mana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1997-03-31

P.P.NAOLEKAR

body1997
[Citation : RLW 1998(1) Raj. 174] (RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) HONBLE P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. Mana Ram and Another Versus State of Rajasthan and Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 1996 Decided on 31.03.1997 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 4 – Publication of Notification – Notification published u/S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act affixed on the notice board of Gram Panchayat – Sufficient evidence on record – Notice be affixed on a conspicuous place in the locality – Affixing at the Notice board of Gram Panchayat is compliance of the mandatory provision – Sec. 45 of the Act has no application to the notice contemplated u/S. 4 of the Act. Writ Petition dismissed (Para 6) Vijay Kumar, for Petitioners Ravi Bhansali, for Respondent No. 3 D.S. Rajvi, Dy. G.A. Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – On 1.2.1996, following order was passed by this Court :– ``The only question which has been raised in this writ petition is that the Notification published u/S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been affixed at a conspicuous place in the locality. Issue notice to the respondents why this writ petition should not be admitted and allowed at the admission stage, returnable within three weeks. P.F. and notices be filed within three days. At the stage, it is directed that if this ground is found to be untrue, the petitioners shall be levied with the cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thou- sand only). (2). It is apparent from the aforesaid order that the petition was entertained only on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, to be called `the Act hereinafter). (3). The notification dated 21.12.1994 u/S. 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 28.2.1995 for acquisition of the lands situated at village Ratanpura Chak 3 RTC (II), Tehsil Sangaria for the development and extension of the industrial area by the RIICO. The notification was published on 28.2.1995 in the Rajasthan Patrika. Objections have been filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the notice issued for an inquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act and award was given on 2.12.1995. (4). The notification was published on 28.2.1995 in the Rajasthan Patrika. Objections have been filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the notice issued for an inquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act and award was given on 2.12.1995. (4). It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that substance of the notification u/S. 4 was not published at a convenient place in the said locality and since there is a non- compliance of the provisions of Sec. 4(1) which is foundation for further steps to be taken for acquisition the entire acquisition proceedings stands nullified. (5). The Apex Court has consistently taken the view that compliance of the requirement of publication of the notification u/S. 4(1) in the gazette as well as the publication of the substance in the locality and in the news-paper is a mandatory requirement. Non- compliance of any of the mode of publication will certainly make the acquisition proceedings void and the Court will be required to declare the proceedings as bad in law. The question is whether there is non-compliance of Sec. 4 so far as it relates to publication of the substance of the notice of Sec. 4(1) at a convenient place. Respondent No.3 RIICO, Jaipur has relied on the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 2.12.1996 for pressing the fact that the substance of the notification was published in the locality. Paragraph 2 of the Award dated 2.12.1996 records that Sec. 4 notification was published in the local news-paper Seema Sandesh and Rajasthan Patrika and a copy of the notification was affixed on the notice-board of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ratanpura and Tehsildar (Revenue), Sangaria and given wide publicity in the locality. The notice was required to be published by 3.3.1995. There is no reason to disbelieve the facts mentioned in the award. Aforesaid facts make it clear that Sec. 4 notification was published in the locality and there is complete compliance of Sec. 4 of the Act. (6). It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the service of the notice to the petitioners should have been made as provided u/s. 45 of the Act. Section 45 is in regard to service of the notice. The whole tenure of the section clearly indicates that it relates to service of notice on an individual and not of service of notice to public in general. Section 45 is in regard to service of the notice. The whole tenure of the section clearly indicates that it relates to service of notice on an individual and not of service of notice to public in general. Section 4 requires publication of the notice at a con- venient place in the locality where the land is being sought to be acquired i.e., general public notice and not individual notice. Section 45 has no application to the notice contemplated u/S. 4 of the Act. The land sought to be acquired is situated at village Ratanpura. Notice u/S. 4 of the Act was affixed on the notice-board of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ratanpura. Thus the requirement of publication of the notice u/S. 4 at a convenient place in the locality stood satisfied. (7). For the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- which the petitioners shall deposit with the Secretary, Legal Aid Board, Jodhpur within a period of two months from today.