Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1743 (RAJ)

Ram Niwas v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-02

M.C.SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : M.C. Sharma, J. 1. The matter comes up on applications filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the ex-parte interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that last of the pasting of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after 'the Act of 1894') sought and relied upon by the Rajasthan Housing Board to bring the issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 within one year of such date, relates not to the pasting of Section 4 notification under the Act in the local area of land acquired. He submits that the pasting of the notification of land, sought to be acquired in Sawai Madhopur, in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur on 7.8.2009 cannot be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation within which the notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was to issue. 3. Counsel for the RHB instead submits that the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur also has the jurisdiction over District Sawai Madhopur and consequently, it was necessary to paste the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur and that such pasting would have to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of limitation for the issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. 4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, I find that the submissions of the counsel for the respondent RHB are absolutely without any substance. It is trite that the pasting of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 has to be within the local area where the land is sought to be acquired. Consequently the date of the pasting of the notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur can be of no consequence whatsoever for the computation of limitation with regard to the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. 5. Consequently, I find no force in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the same is dismissed. 6. 5. Consequently, I find no force in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the same is dismissed. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and the writ petitions are being finally decided at this stage. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are/were the khatedars of different khasra number of lands, as mentioned in the writ petitions. 8. On 4.7.2008, a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued by the respondents mentioning therein that the land of the petitioners was needed for public purpose and the State Government wanted to acquire the land for residential scheme. The said notification was published in the news paper on 14.7.2009. However, in the said Notification, there was no mentioning with regard to filing the objections under Section 5A of the Act. Thereafter on 22.7.2009, a public notice was issued and the same was pasted on 27.7.2009 at public places. The respondents issued a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 4.8.2010, which was published in the news paper on 28.9.2010. In the said notification, it was mentioned that the notification under section 6 has been issued after considering the objections filed under section 5A, whereas there was no notice with regard to filing of the objection under Section 5A as such the khatedars of the land could not have filed their objections. 9. Further, as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, no notification under Section 6 of the Act can be issued after the period of one year from the date of the notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after one year of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 10. Thereafter the respondents issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act on 26.7.2012. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, under Section 4 of the Act and notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions before this Court. 11. 10. Thereafter the respondents issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act on 26.7.2012. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, under Section 4 of the Act and notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions before this Court. 11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the interim order directing that the award in land acquisition proceedings under consideration shall not be passed without permission of the Court and petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. 12. Thereafter the respondents filed the applications for vacation of the interim order, which have been dismissed by this court, as mentioned here-in-above. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the notification issued under section 6 of the Act is illegal as the same has been issued in contravention of the provisions of the Act as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.7.2008, which was published in the news paper on 14.7.2009 and public notice was issued on 22.7.2009 and notification under Section 6 was issued on 4.8.2010 and the same was published on 28.9.2010. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, no notification under Section 6 of the Act can be issued after the period of one year from the date of the notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after one year of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 14. He has further contended that in the present case, no objection under Section 5A of the Act has been invited by the respondents and without calling the objection, issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act is illegal. 15. He has further contended that initially the government issued the notification U/s. 27 of Rajasthan Housing Board for 23.42 ha. land, but the land of some influential khatedars had been excluded by the government, on the request made by the Rajasthan Housing Board. As such the action of the government while acquiring the land of petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, without hearing to the petitioners, the land of the petitioners is being taken away by the respondents. As such the action of the government while acquiring the land of petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, without hearing to the petitioners, the land of the petitioners is being taken away by the respondents. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents is against Article 300A of the Constitution of India, therefore, the writ petitions be allowed and the impugned notifications be quashed and set-aside. 16. Upon issuance of the notice by this Court, the respondents filed their reply mentioning therein that no notice is required to be issued to the Khatedars for filing the objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They have further contended that the notification issued on 4.7.2008 was published in two newspapers namely Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Samachar Jagat having circulation in the locality on 14.7.2009. Apart from it, the said public notice was also pasted on the notice board of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur; on the notice board of District Collector Sawai madhopur and other conspicuous places. After publication of the said notification, objections were submitted before the respondent No. 4 by various khatedars/interested persons. Thereafter the notices were issued on 2.9.2009 by the respondent No. 4 for providing opportunity of hearing on the objections and the date 29.9.2009 was fixed for those khatedars/persons interested who submitted objections relating to acquisition proceedings, which were served through Resident Engineer, Division-I, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and after considering their objections, report under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made by the respondent No. 4 and the same was sent by the respondent No. 4 on 26.7.2010 to the respondent No. 1. They have further contended that it is not disputed that the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4.8.2010 and the same was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 16.8.2010. They have further contended that as per provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued/made after the period of one year from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioners are misinterpreting the law. 17. They have further contended that as per provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued/made after the period of one year from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioners are misinterpreting the law. 17. They have further contended that the last date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is 7.8.2009 when the said public notice was pasted on the notice board of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur and in the alternative at the most, the last date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is 6.8.2009 when the said public notice was pasted in the locality on the notice board of the Government School. Thus, the notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued on 4.8.2010 well within the period of one year from the last date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. They have further contended that in the instant matter, the award has already been passed and in this view of the matter, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are unsustainable and they deserve to be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 19. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1893 is reproduced as under: "Section 6 : Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 19. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1893 is reproduced as under: "Section 6 : Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2)]: Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1), (i) .......... (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification: .... 20. From a perusal of Section 6, it is amply clear that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. 21. In the case in hand, the notification under Section 4 is found to have been issued on 4.7.2008 and the notification under Section 6 is found to have been issued on 4.8.2010 i.e. beyond the period of one year. Furthermore, the petitioners are residents of Sawai madhopur and their lands were sought to be acquired in District Sawai Madhopur, whereas the public notice is found to have been pasted on the notice board of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur. The pasting of the notification of land, sought to be acquired in Sawai Madhopur, in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur on 7.8.2009 cannot be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation within which the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was to issue. The pasting of the notification of land, sought to be acquired in Sawai Madhopur, in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur on 7.8.2009 cannot be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation within which the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was to issue. The pasting of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 has to be within the local area, where the land is sought to be acquired. In this view of the matter, the respondents are found to have violated the mandatory provisions of law and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings in this matter void ab-initio and they are declared illegal. 22. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned notification dated 4.7.2008 issued under Section 4, notification dated 4.8.2010 issued under Section 6 and notification dated 26.7.2012 issued under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are hereby quashed and set-aside. 23. Parties to bear their own costs.