Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1284 (RAJ)

PUSHPA MALPANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015-07-13

SUNIL AMBWANI, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. All these Special Appeals arise out of the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 15.04.2015, by which he has dismissed all the four writ petitions, challenging the acquisition of land for developing a residential housing colony by the Rajasthan Housing Board at Sri Ganganagar. The lands situate in various revenue villages, namely, Chak 1F Chhoti, Chak 3A Chhoti and Chak 4A Chhoti, were proposed to be acquired. A Notification was published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the Act'), in Rajasthan Gazette on 04.08.2010, and in the two newspapers on 16.10.2010. An amended Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued by the State Governmetn on 06.01.2011, and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 07.01.2011. It was also published in two local newspapers on 01.06.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Duty, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, issued a public notice on 10.10.2011, inviting objections against the proposed acquisition, in writing, within 30 days of the publication of the Notification before the Land Acquisition Officer. The objections were filed on 14.11.2011/23.11.2011, and were rejected, after consideration of the report under Section 5A, after which a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the State Government on 29.10.2012, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 06.11.2012. 3. The challenge was set up before learned Single Judge against the Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, on the ground that the declaration under Section 6 was issued beyond the period of one year and by virtue of first Proviso to Section 6 of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. It was also contended that though the petitioners raised objections against the proposed acquisition, they were not given an opportunity of hearing by the competent authority, in vilation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. The objections were not decided, and straightway the report was sent to the State Government, in mechanical manner. 4. The State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Housing Board contested the writ petitions. The objections were not decided, and straightway the report was sent to the State Government, in mechanical manner. 4. The State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Housing Board contested the writ petitions. It was stated that the last date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act, is 03.11.2011, and not 10.10.2011, and thus the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, dated 29.10.2012, was within the time period of one year, from the last of the dates of publication, in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. 5. On the question of hearing of the objections, it was stated that on 31.05.2012, the Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice to all concerned, including the petitioners, to attend the Office, either in person, or through pleader for hearing of their objections on 18.07.2012. The Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Hanumangarh, got all the notices served and sent the served notices along with his letter dated 19.06.2012. The objections raised, were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter, a report containing his recommendations on objections, was forwarded to the State Government. The declaration under Section 6(1) was issued, after due deliberations on the report. 6. On the question of last date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act and limitation of one year, within which a declaration under Section 6(1) was to be published, the findings, as summarized by learned Single Judge in para 13, are quoted as below:- “13. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, the last date of the publication of notification and the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification by different modes as prescribed, is considered to be the date of publication. It is also not disputed that the amended notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued by the State Government on 6.1.11, was published in the Official Gazette on 7.1.11 and in the two local newspapers on 1.6.11. It is a matter of record that for compliance of third mode of publication as provided for under Section 4(1), the public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality was issued on 10.10.11. It is a matter of record that for compliance of third mode of publication as provided for under Section 4(1), the public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality was issued on 10.10.11. A perusal of the photo stat copies of the notices which were forwarded by the Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board to the Land Acquisition Officer after service, placed on record reveal that though the endorsement on the notices does not contain complete report regarding affixation but then, undoubtedly, the same bear signatures of recipients of the notices for affixation and endorsement on one of the notices, received from the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, bears the date 3.11.11'. It is well settled that official acts are presumed to be done properly and legally in accordance with the procedure laid down unless the contrary is proved on the basis of some cogent evidence on record. In the considered opinion of this court, the affidavit of one Shri Balraj Singh, alleged to be President of the School, placed on record, appears to be a procured document inasmuch as, the Government Schools are not headed by the President. A perusal of the said notice placed on record also bears signature of Smt. Meena Jain, then Head Master of Government Primary School, 4A Chhoti, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar. Similarly, the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Head Master of the Government Secondary School, Telewala, in no manner, disclose as to at whose instance and under what authority, the said certificate has been issued by the Head Master of the school. It does not disclose as to how the person issuing the certificate was related to the process of publication of the public notice dated 10.10.11. In the considered opinion of this court, on the basis of such affidavit and the certificate, no conclusion or inference of non publication of the notice can be drawn. In any case, if the public notice issued is not published at one particular place out of many places specified in the notice, in no manner, it can have effect of vitiating the land acquisition proceedings as such, inasmuch as, ultimately, the purpose of issuing the notices is that the persons affected by the land acquisition proceedings may come to know about the proceeding initiated and enable them to raise objections thereto, if any. It is not even the case of the petitioners that on account of non publication of the notice at a particular place, they are prejudicially affected. In this view of the matter, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners by way of rejoinder that the condition regarding third mode of publication in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act is not complied with, to say the least, is absolutely devoid of any merit. In absence of any evidence showing that the publication has not been made in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and the date of last publication as disclosed by the respondents is not the actual date of last publication, the position emerging from the official record, has to be taken to be correct and thus, 3.11.11' has to be treated as the last date of publication in terms of provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and consequently, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, on 29.10.11, cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation i.e. one year as provided for under first proviso to Section 6 of the Act.” 7. On the disposal of the objections, learned Single Judge opined in para 15, as follows:- “15. Coming to the disposal of the objections raised by the petitioners against the proposed acquisition of the land in terms of Section 5A of the Act, it is to be noticed that in the writ petitions filed, the respondents have taken a categorical stand that they filed the objections pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government on 14.11.11/23.11.11 by way of legal notice and therefore, the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner-Smt. Pushpa Malpani by way of rejoinder that as a matter of fact, the objections were raised on 18.7.12 and not on 23.11.11, appears to be false to her knowledge. As a matter of fact, as per the mandate of provisions of Section 5A, the objections against the acquisition of the land are required to be made by the person interested in the land sought to be acquired within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notice under Section 4 of the Act and therefore, if the objections were raised by the petitioners on 18.7.12, the same having been filed beyond the period of 30 days, could not have been entertained. Moreover, the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Act, duly served upon the objectors, placed on record, reveals that the notice to the objectors was issued to attend the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.7.12 to avail the opportunity of hearing in respect of the objections raised and not for filing the objections. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that before considering the objections and submitting the report in terms of Section 5A of the Act, the opportunity of hearing was not extended to them by the Land Acquisition Officer, runs contrary to the record and therefore, cannot be accepted.” 8. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. He had perused the entire records and found that the public notice of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was given on 03.11.2011. The evidence led by the petitioners by filing an affidavit of one Shri Balraj Singh, President of the School, was not believed, inasmuch as there are no post of President in the schools run by State Government. The certificate issued by Smt. Meena Jain, the then Head Mistress of the Government Primary School, Chak 4A, Chhoti, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar, was also disbelieved on the ground that she has not stated as to at whose instance the certificate was given and that she was not related to the process of publication of notice in any manner. The finding therefore, that public notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was given on 03.11.2011, does not call for interference. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devender Kumar Tyagi And Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others, (2011) 9 SCC 164 , Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Vs. Bheru Lal and others, AIR 2002 SC 3309 , and Eugenio Misquita And Others Vs. State of Goa And Others, (1997) 8 SCC 47 , in support of his submissions, that in order to consider the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, as has been issued, the last date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) has to be determined, with reference to the language of Section 4 (1) of the Act. 10. 10. We do not find that in any of the judgments, the interpretetation different than what was considered by learned Single Judge, has been given. He has considered the entire records and found that the public notices of Section 4(1) of the Act were given, and that the last date of the publication of the notice under Section 4(1), is 03.11.2011. 11. In order to satisfy ourselves, we have also examined the public notice, and find that the notices were given to all concerned Officers including the Officers of the Panchayat and the school, to be published on the notice board. These notices were received in the public offices, to whom it was endorsed on 03.11.2011. An endorsement on one of the notices received from the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, bears the date 03.11.2011'. Learned Single Judge, thus, accepted the case of the respondents that the public notice of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was given on 03.11.2011. 12. So far as the argument with regard to filing the objections within 30 days is concerned, we find that the dates were fixed on the objections, and that the objections were heard, and were not accepted, but forwarded to the State Government, which rejected the objections. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not made in submission with regard to the reasons given for rejecting the objections. 13. In view of the above, we do not propose to consider the case law, cited by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2002 SC 187 , and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1226/2013-Fusa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 15.05.2015. In both the cases, the question of limitation under the Proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act was considered, and finding was recorded in favour of the State. 14. All the Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 15. A copy of the judgment will be placed in the connected files.