Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1029 (RAJ)

Bharat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2001-07-06

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The case has a chequered history as the matter stood decided earlier by this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.1989 and the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act stood quashed in relation to the land in dispute. The respondents filed a review petition No. 99/1990, which was allowed vide order dated 9.7.97 and the writ petition was restored to its original number recalling the said judgment. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the land acquisition proceedings on various grounds. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondents issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') on 16.1.80 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on July 4, 1980. Notices under Section 9 were Issued on 21.7.80; award was made in respect of some land covered by the said Notification under Section 4 on 9.6.81 but so far as the land in dispute is concerned, the Award could not be made in view of pendency of the writ petition though no interim order has been passed. During pendency of the writ petition, the Central Act stood amended, which was adopted by the State Government also by the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1987 and it was mandatory in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Central Act that in case the Award had not already been made in respect of a particular land, it shall be made within the period of two years, failing which the proceedings would lapse. As the Award had not been made within the said stipulated period in respect of the land in dispute, the writ petition' stood allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.12.89 and the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in dispute stood quashed. Respondents filed a review petition contending that though the award had not been made in respect of the land in dispute but as the award had been made in respect of the other land covered by the same Notification, compensation had been offered to the petitioner-herein on the basis of the said award and it had been accepted by the petitioners and as this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition, therefore, the earlier judgment required re-consideration. Vide order dated 9.7.97, the review petition was allowed and the judgment and order dated 11.12.89 was recalled and the writ petition was directed to be heard afresh. 3. This matter remained on board on several occasions. Adjournments were sought by the respondents on 3.7.2001 for one day. It was listed on 4.7.2001 but none appeared for the respondent. Again it was listed on 5.7.2001 but none appeared for them. Hence it was directed to be listed today, i.e. on 6.7.2001 alongwith record of the review petition. None appeared for the respondents. 4. The facts are not in dispute. There is no ambiguity in law also. In the eye of law, when there is no award passed within the period of two years, as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings under the Act would lapse. In Abdul Majid Sahib & Anr. v. The District Collector & ors., AIR 1997 SC 2130 , the Apex Court held that 'the Land Acquisition Officer is statutorily under an obligation, at the pain of invalidation of the acquisition itself, to make the award within two years unless it falls within one of the provisions or the explanation added thereto." The Act does not contemplate for subsequent rectification. (Vide Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1233 ). Same view has been taken by this Court in Roopa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2000(2) RLR 167 ; and DBCWP No. 324, 11989, S.D. Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan & ors., decided on 7.7.1989 . 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Poona City Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya Nagesh Deodher, AIR 1965 SC 555 , while interpreting the provision under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, observed as under: "The benefit of this section would be available to the Corporation only if it was held that this deduction of ten per cent was 'an act done or purported to be done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act.' We have already held that this levy was not in pursuance or execution of the Act. It is equally clear that in view of the provisions of Section 127(4) (to which we have already referred) the levy could not be said to be 'purported to be done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Act.' For, what is plainly prohibited by the Act cannot be claimed to be purported to be done in pursuance or intended execution of the Act." 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Sri Niymatulla, AIR 1971 SC 97 , interpreted Section 135 (2) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909, which is similar to Section 233(1) (a) of the Act in the following terms : "The provisions contained in Section 135 of the Indore Municipal Act will be applicable to things done under the Act. It is manifest that in the present case the order of dismissal passed by Shri Ghatpande was beyond his jurisdiction and is, therefore, not an act done under the Act." 7. The aforesaid judgments were reconsidered and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, Morvi, AIR 1996 SC 2520 . 8. As till today, no award has been made in respect of the land in dispute, it cannot be held that the requirement of law has ever been complied with. Therefore, the view taken by this Court earlier that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed for non-making of the award, is reiterated. 9. However, the question does arise that in case the petitioner had already accepted the compensation as assessed in respect of other lands, whether the proceedings can be quashed? This fact had not been brought to the notice of the Court either by the petitioners or the respondents at the time of disposal of the writ petition earlier and it was pointed out by filing the review petition. The material on record makes it clear that the petitioners had not challenged the acquisition in respect of their entire land notified under Section 4 of the Act, rather the writ petition was limited to a particular category of land and, therefore, they accepted the compensation in respect of other land and so far as the land in dispute is concerned, the compensation had been taken by the petitioners under protest as is evident from the receipt (Annx. 1) filed alongwith the review petition. 1) filed alongwith the review petition. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners cannot be permitted to retain the possession of the land as well as the compensation for the same. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The land acquisition proceedings qua the land in dispute are declared to have lapsed for non-compliance of the statutory provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. However, the petitioners are directed to refund the compensation obtained in respect of the land in dispute with the interest @12% per annum within the stipulated period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******