Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2326 (RAJ)

Ram Jeevan v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-31

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Honble RATHORE, J.–Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1995 the State Government has prepared a scheme for establishment of new Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard (Fruit & Vegetable) and has issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.5.1996 for acquiring the land measuring 64.84 hectares. (2). A notification under sections 6 and 17 and issued on 27.12.1996 and after that the land acquisition officer has passed the award dated 26.12.1998 for the aforesaid land and the compensation of the total land has also been deposited by the respondent including the land of the petitioner. (3). Thereafter, again for the second phase of the acquisition a notification under Section 4 was issued on 15.3.1999 which was published in the official gazette on 18.3.1999 for the land measuring 44.93 hectares including the land of the petitioner i.e., 2.44 hectares. (4). Since, the land was urgently needed for the establishment of terminal market, notice under Section 6 as well as 17 was issued on 16.3.2000 which was published in the official gazette on 18.3.2000. (5). In the second acquisition proceeding also the Land Acquisition Officer completed the acquisition proceedings and passed the award dated 15.3.2002 which includes the land of the petitioner i.e., 2.44 hectares and calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,41,235/- and same was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. (6). It is also not disputed that the petitioner has withdrawn the part payment of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,37,753/- and for the remaining amount Rs. 31,41,235/- the petitioner has gone in reference and which is still pending before the learned civil Judge Jaipur. (7). Since, the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings well within time and after passing of the award opted to challenge the acquisition proceedings beside this fact that the reference of the petitioner is still pending for enhancement of the compensation and in such circumstances the petitioner-is estopped to challenge the acquisition proceedings. (8). The petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act after a delay of about six years and even the award was also passed way back in the year 2002 and now the petitioner after a delay of about 3 years estopped to challenge the award. (8). The petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act after a delay of about six years and even the award was also passed way back in the year 2002 and now the petitioner after a delay of about 3 years estopped to challenge the award. Honble the Supreme Court in the case Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur vs. Bheru Lal & Ors., reported in (2002) 7 SCC 712 = RLW 2003(1) SC 113, has held that the writ petition challenging the notification of acquisition after a delay of 2 years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. As also the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 and also received part payment of compensation in such circumstances, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. (9). Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost.