Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 814 (RAJ)

Geeta Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-27

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's ancestor Prem Das's Khatedari land of Khasra Nos. 129, 130 and 131 measuring 6 Bighas and 6 Biswas of the Village Malan Tehsil Bhilwara was acquired for which the proceedings were taken under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 by issuing Notification under Section 52(1) of the above Act of 1959. The possession of the land was taken in the month of April, 1977. The District Collector passed the award on 29th Dec., 1979. Against this award dated 29th Dec., 1979, reference proceeding were initiated and the Civil Judge by its order dated 6th March, 1982 set aside the award and sent back the matter to the District Collector for re-determination of the compensation. The learned District Collector passed the award on 13th Dec., 1983. 3. In the year 1984, the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 was amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act 1984) and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to all the States including the State of Rajasthan, consequence of which the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, which was in force, stood repealed. 4. The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was also amended and proceeding of acquisition of the land in dispute concluded under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 as amended. Because of these amendments in different years some transitional provisions were needed and therefore, necessary provision was made by Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment), 1984 by virtue of which provisions of Section 23(1-A) were made applicable to the proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Act of 1894 which were pending on 30th April, 1982 and in which no award was passed before that date. Meaning thereby the certain benefits were made available retrospectively to limited matters, to the matters which were the pending on 30th April, 1982. By the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act. 1987, Section 66 was added to the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and by virtue of provisions contained in Section 56(8) and (9) it was provided that the benefits arising from application of Section 23(1-A) and (2) of Section 28 and 34 shall also be given to the cases already decided as specified in Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Since according to the petitioner, proceeding for acquisition of petitioner's land was pending as on 30th April, 1982 and award was passed on 13 Dec., 1983, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of which are given sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act of 1984 by virtue of Section 30(a) of the Land Ac quisition (Amendment) Act, 1987 read with sub- section (8) & (9) of Section 56 inserted by the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987. 5. In view of the above provisions, to take benefits of the amendments, application was submitted before the Collector, Bhilwara for additional compensation and interest according to sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 and Sections 28 and 34 of the amended Land Acquisition Act. The Collector, reasons best known to him, made reference to the Civil Judge, Bhilwara vide order dated 12th Sept., 1990 but the Civil Judge, Bhilwara vide order dated 5th Jan., 1991 sent back the file to the Collector, Bhilwara on the apparent reason that matter was to be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and it was not a matter which could have been referred to the Civil Court. After receipt of the file from the Civil Court, the District Collector, Bhilwara sent the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara holding that post of Land Acquisition Officer in Bhilwara has been created and he is the competent authority to decide the application. The Land Acquisition Officer Bhilwara vide order dated 28th Nov., 1992 (Annexure-6) rejected the claim of the petitioners by holding that since the land was acquired and the award has been passed before 1987, therefore, the proceedings already concluded cannot be reopened and also that sub-sections (8) and (9) of Section 56 of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 applies to the proceedings in which the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were pending and decided cases cannot be reopened. It is relevant to mention here though the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Urban Improvement Act, 1956 but due to changes in law the award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. It is relevant to mention here though the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Urban Improvement Act, 1956 but due to changes in law the award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer has misinterpreted the provisions of laws mentioned above and the petitioners are entitled for the benefits flowing from Section 23(1-A) and (2) and Sections 28 and 34 of the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987. 7. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and in para 8 of the reply, very specifically admitted that according to amendment made by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, Section 23(1-A) of the Act was made applicable to all those proceedings for acquisition of any land under the principal Act which were pending on 30th April, 1982 and in which no award has been made by the Collector before that day. In reply it is stated that since the proceedings were taken under the provisions of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and the District Collector passed the award in the year 1980 and the compensation has been paid to the claimants before passing of the award that is, on 29th Dec., 1979, therefore, amended provisions of Section 23(1-A), (2) and 28 and 34 are not applicable in the present case. 8. In view of the above facts it appears that the respondents are not in position to defend the pleas raised by the petitioners in the writ petition. The only plea of the respondents is that the District Collector passed the award in the year 1980 (in fact on 29th Dec., 1979) ignored the fact that the said award was set aside by order dated 6th March, 1982 and the District Collector passed the award finally on 13th Dec., 1983. It is not in dispute that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated prior to 30th April, 1982 and the award was passed on 29th Dec., 1979 was set aside and ultimately the award was passed by the District Collector on 13th Dec., 1983. The award dated 29th Dec., 1979 which was set aside cannot be treated as any award and the proceedings of land acquisition stand concluded only by the award dated 13th Dec., 1983. The award dated 29th Dec., 1979 which was set aside cannot be treated as any award and the proceedings of land acquisition stand concluded only by the award dated 13th Dec., 1983. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala reported in (1994) 6 JT (SC) 182 : ( AIR 1995 SC 1012 ), the present case squarely falls within the sub-clause (a) of Section 23(1-A), therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong in denying the benefit of the amended provisions to the petitioners. 9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition of the petitioners is allowed with costs and the order dated 28th Nov., 1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, U. I. T., Bhilwara in case No. 100/1092 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer for determination of the amount in accordance with the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Petition allowed. *******