Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 543 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar v. Amarjeet Kaur

2015-02-27

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment 1. We have learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Special Appeal has been arises out of the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2013, by which he has allowed the writ petition arising from the proceedings for acquisition of land, for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 11.07.1991, and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 07.05.1993. The land in khasra No.371/2 measuring 1 bigha in village Devkheda, Tehsil and District Alwar was jointly purchased by Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, petitioner No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) along with her husband late Shri Satyawan Singh Dhillon on 12.06.1978 from Smt. Ram Pyari, and was mutated in their favour. The land comprised of a house having six rooms, one kitchen, one toilet and one washroom with two rooms constructed for the livestock. They had also planted about 200 trees, and raised a wall, on which the electricity motor has been installed. 3. The land in question was acquired for 'Warehousing & Godown Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), after inviting objections under section 5A of the Act, which were filed on 12.12.1989. It was alleged that the Scheme was not valid, and that the Notification was issued in the name of a dead person, after which the two sons of the petitioner No.1 were recorded as khatedars, to whom notices were not issued. It is also stated that the house has been constructed on the land, in which the entire family is residing since 1973. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the objections under Section 5A of the Act, were not considered in the light of the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the report of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Act, he recommended that on inspection of the land in dispute, it was found that the petitioners have their house and cattle shed on it. The land is only about a bigha, which has been completely utilised by them for constructions. He also reported that the land is not covered in the Scheme proposed by the Urban Improvement Trust. The land is only about a bigha, which has been completely utilised by them for constructions. He also reported that the land is not covered in the Scheme proposed by the Urban Improvement Trust. The representative of the Urban Improvement Trust, for whom the land was acquired, admitted before the Land Acquisition Officer that this land is outside the boundary of the Scheme, and that the Urban Improvement Trust has no objection, if the land in dispute is excluded from the acquisition. 5. The State of Rajasthan did not file any reply. In the reply filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, it was stated that the objections were considered. The reply given by the Urban Improvement Trust did not explain, nor gave any reason for not considering the objections, or the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, which clearly stated that the land was not covered in the Scheme, proposed by the Urban Improvement Trust. It is outside the boundary of the Scheme, and that the Urban Improvement Trust has no objection, if the land is excluded from the Scheme. 6. Learned Single Judge has relied on M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Ltd. and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others [2013 AIR SCW 2024] and Woman's Education Trust and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others [2013 AIR SCW 3107], and has given findings that the State Government did not consider the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, and thus, the decision on the objection under section 5A of the Act, was not made with objective application of mind. 7. After the judgment by learned Single Judge, giving rise to this Special Appeal, the Supreme Court has rendered three more opinions to the same effect in Union of India and Others vs. Shiv Raj and Others [ (2014) 6 SCC 564 ], Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others [2014 AIR SCW 986], and M/s. Sharma Agro Industries vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [2015 AIR SCW 214]. 8. In M/s. Sharma Agro Industries vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), after consideration of the entire law on the subject, including all previous judgments of the Supreme Court, it was held as follows: “9. ....... The State Government has neither accepted the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector nor assigned any reasons before issuing declaration notification under Section 6 of the Act. (supra), after consideration of the entire law on the subject, including all previous judgments of the Supreme Court, it was held as follows: “9. ....... The State Government has neither accepted the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector nor assigned any reasons before issuing declaration notification under Section 6 of the Act. The same is sought to be justified by the learned Addl. Advocate General contending that it is the prerogative of the Government to either accept or reject the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to the proposed land to be acquired by issuing declaration notification under Section 6 of the Act. This contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is wholly untenable in law in view of the decisions referred to above. However, after adverting to the decisions of this Court in the above case, and in the cases referred to supra, the said report of the Land Acquisition Collector was neither accepted by the Government nor did the Government assign any reasons before issuing the Declaration Notification by holding that the land is required for public purpose, we are of the view that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated in law.” 9. In the present case, as rightly observed by learned Single Judge, the State Government did not file any reply, nor there was any material to show that the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, in which it was stated that the entire land of 1 bigha, for which the objections were filed, has been utilised by the family of the petitioner for constructions; the land is not covered by the Scheme, proposed by the Urban Improvement Trust, and that the Urban Improvement Trust had admitted before the Land Acquisition Officer, that the land is outside the boundary of the Scheme, was not considered by the State Government. In fact there was no objective consideration, whatsoever on the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, for which the aforesaid facts were stated by the State Government. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. 11. The Special Appeal is dismissed in limine.