Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 543 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sulochna Devi

2013-03-05

AMITAVA ROY, MEENA V.GOMBER

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 11.12.2000 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3891/1989, whereby the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the house of the respondent named "Lake House", has been annulled. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Shortly put the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal, are that in response to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short herein-after referred to as 'the Act'), published on 31.10.1987, the respondent submitted her objections thereto under Section 5-A thereof, challenging the validity of the proceedings sought to be initiated thereby. She contended, inter alia, that she had no other residential house except the one sought to be acquired and that the process lacked bona fide as it was by way of retaliation of a suit instituted by her for ejectment of the public authority in occupation thereof, as a tenant. According to her, though the proceedings before the jurisdictional Collector, entrusted with the duty of hearing the objection, was initially fixed on 23.1.1988, the same got adjourned from time to time and thereafter as it transpired later-on, was transferred to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli, for disposal. The respondent-writ petitioner has pleaded that neither she nor was her advocate informed of this transfer of forum and that eventually it was on the publication of the Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 27.10.1988, that she could learn that it was based on a recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli, under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. The appellant State in its reply, while asserting that the house in question was sought to be acquired to cater to a public purpose, also refuted the respondent-writ petitioner's imputation that she was denied an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings under Section 5-A(1) of the Act. 4. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the pleadings and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held the view that the materials on record did not demonstrate that in reality the respondent-writ petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings under Section 5-A(1) of the Act. 4. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the pleadings and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held the view that the materials on record did not demonstrate that in reality the respondent-writ petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings under Section 5-A(1) of the Act. It was held further that she was even not notified about the transfer of the forum of the proceedings from that of the jurisdictional Collector to that of the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli. It was noticed as well that the respondent-writ petitioner at the relevant point of time was a resident of Kolkata and that the learned advocate to whom the notice was claimed to have been addressed, did not represent her in the proceedings. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that as admittedly the house "Lake House" belonging to the respondent-writ petitioner at that point of time used to be in occupation of Govt. officers as tenant, the acquisition proceedings initiated during the pendency of the civil suit for ejectment, did render the same invalid as the same as apparently not in public interest. The proceedings vis-a-vis the "Lake House", was thus annulled. 5. Mr. Shekhawat has argued, with particular reference to the recommendations under Section 5-A(2) of the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, that as it would be apparent therefrom that the respondent-writ petitioner was given ample opportunity as contemplated under Section 5-A(1) of the Act to substantiate her objections, no conclusion to the contrary as drawn by the learned Single Judge, is sustainable in law and on facts. According to him, the notice of transfer and the date of hearing of the proceedings had been duly served on the respondent-writ petitioner and her advocate Mr. Umakant Bhardwaj, and, therefore, the plea to the contrary is mis conceived besides being unfounded. He has argued further that as there was no challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had traversed beyond the framework of the assailment and on that count only the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. He has argued further that as there was no challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had traversed beyond the framework of the assailment and on that count only the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Mehta, has argued that it being apparent on the face of the record that the respondent-writ petitioner had been denied opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 5-A(1) of the Act, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. According to him, as admittedly the house sought to be acquired in the proceedings purportedly initiated under Section 4 of the Act is one that used to be in occupation of Govt. officers, the purpose did not come within the ambit of "public purpose", within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in annulling the proceedings. 7. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and also the rival arguments. On being queried by us, the learned counsel for appellants has candidly admitted that the relevant official records pertaining to the impugned acquisition proceedings is not available for our scrutiny. On a bare perusal of the notice claimed to have been issued to the respondent-writ petitioner, would reveal that this notice was not served on her as would be apparent from the service report of the Process Server. There is no overwhelming evidence on record to the effect that Mr. Umakant Bhardwaj, had been at all relevant point of time the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner vis-a-vis the proceedings under Section 5-A(1) of the Act. In absence of the official records, the finding of the learned Single Judge to this effect, thus cannot be reversed. Additionally, the analysis made in the impugned judgment and order vis-a-vis the purpose for which the respondent-writ petitioner's house was sought to be acquired, in our considered opinion even in absence of specific relief to that effect does not warrant any interference. Admittedly a suit with regard to the same house had been pending at that point of time in which the respondent-writ petitioner had sought for a decree for eviction and vacant possession on the ground of bona fide requirement. It is submitted at the Bar that an appeal arising from the suit, is presently pending in an appropriate civil forum. 8. It is submitted at the Bar that an appeal arising from the suit, is presently pending in an appropriate civil forum. 8. Be that as it may, on a cumulative consideration of all above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that no interference to the impugned judgment and order is called for. The appeal is thus dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******