Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 582 (RAJ)

UIT, Udaipur v. Nanda

2002-03-15

K.K.ACHARYA, RAJESH BALIA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This is one case which has stretched out of group of cases concerned about land acquisition proceedings which commenced with publication of notification under section 4 dated 28.10.1988. 2. The respondents in this appeal are joint tenants of the land which was sought to be acquired namely Nanda and Nana sons of Gumana. Nana died and he was represented through his legal representatives. It is reported by the counsel for the appellant that Nanda too has died. Since the matter concerns the validity of notification issued under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and the land in question is in the joint tenancy of the two brothers and interests of Nana, one of the joint tenants has already been served. They sufficiently represent for the present litigation, estate of deceased-Nanda also and therefore, the name of Nanda may be struck of and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may be continued to represent the interest of Nana as well as the joint tenant Nanda. 3. In first bout of litigation, the notification issued under section 4 was held to be invalid by this Court in S.B. Writ Petition No. 1488/1991; Arjun Lal & Ann us. State & Ors. decided on 11.5.1992 and following the case similar challenges in other writ petitions were also allowed. On appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside by Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 21.3.1990 and the cases were remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions in accordance with law. 4. On such remand the learned Single Judge held by his order dated 10.3.1998 that the acquisition is valid and dismissed the writ petitions. How- ever, he directed that for the purposes of compensation, the date of notification is advanced to 21.6.1993, for the purposes of determining the market rate of the land. Aggrieved with that judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of acquisition proceedings and the directions issued to the State of Rajasthan for advancing the relevant date for the purposes of determining market rate to 21.6.1993, the petitioners as well as the State of Rajasthan filed appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. 5. Aggrieved with that judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of acquisition proceedings and the directions issued to the State of Rajasthan for advancing the relevant date for the purposes of determining market rate to 21.6.1993, the petitioners as well as the State of Rajasthan filed appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 446/1998 decided on 18.10.2000 and other connected cases dismissed the appeals of the petitioners as well as of the State and has affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the State further informed that further appeals before the Supreme Court has not resulted in any reversal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus the validity of the acquisition proceedings stands upheld vide Bench decision of this Court referred to above in Lakesh Chandra's case. 7. The present writ petition arises out of the same acquisition proceedings and has been dealt with at the stage when the land acquisition proceedings has been set aside by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is against that order by the State of Rajasthan for setting aside the order, quashing the very same land acquisition proceedings, which as noticed above has since been held to be valid. 8. In view of the concluded controversy about the impugned acquisition proceedings as noticed by us, this appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. However, the directions given in the judgment by the learned Single Judge that though the notification under section 4 was published in Official Gazette dated 21.6.1993, it shall be deemed to be one dated 21.6.1993 and the petitioner/persons interested in land would be entitled to get compensation at the market rate of the land, which was prevalent on 1.6.1993. 9. This appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the final direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on 10.3.1998 referred to in the Bench decision of this Court in Lokesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & 17 Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 446 of 1998), decided on 18.10.2000 since reported in 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 89. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******