MRS GRACE HARRIS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the order of the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No 1182 of 1981, whereby the writ petition submitted by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) IN the writ petition aforesaid, the appellant had challenged the validity of the proceedings for the acquisition of certain lands, initiated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act") and had prayed that the notifications (annexed as Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition) which had been issued under Sections 52 (2) and 52 (1) respectively of the Act, be declared void and be quashed The said writ petition related to a plot of land measuring 75' x 90', situated in Survey No. 421 in Tehsil-Sikar. Yuvrani Trilokay Rajyalakshmi Devi, widow of late Raj Kumar, Shri Hirdayal Singh of Sikar, was the owner of Survey No. 49!, measuring 11 Bighas and 12 Biswas. A plot of land measuring 75* x 90' out of the said survey number was purchased by the appellant from the aforesaid Yuvrani Trilokya Rajyalakshmi Devi under a sale deed, dated March 2, 1967. After the execution of the aforesaid sale-deed, notification dated March 15, 1978 was issued under Section 52 (2) of the Act and all the lands in Survey No. 421 were covered by the said notification. The said notification was followed by another notification dated April 18, 1981, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act. By the aforesaid notification, it was notified that the land mentioned in Survey No. 421 would vest in the State from the date of the publication of the said notification. The aforesaid notification dated April 18. 1981 was published in the Gazette, dated April 21, 1981. After the aforesaid notification had been issued, a notice, dated June 17, 1981, was issued under sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Act and by the said notice, the appellant was asked to deliver possession of the plot in dispute within 30 days and she was informed that on her failure to do so, forcible possession of the land would be taken under subsection (6) of Section 52. By another notice dated June 17, 1981, the appellant was informed that she could approach the concerned authorities for the settlement of compensation amount to be paid to her for her plot The aforesaid notice was issued under sub-section (3) of Section 53 of the Act. Aggrieved by the notifications and the notices referred to above, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court.

(3.) IN Sunderlal vs. Paramsukhdas (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether a person having a decree against owner of the land under acquisition, could be said to be a person interested for the purpose of proceedings under Sections 20 and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The Supreme Court held that the decree-holder was a person interested in the objections which are made in the reference made to the Court and which is pending before it and was also a person whose interest was affected by the decision on the objections and he was accordingly entitled to be made a party.