KHANGARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to quash the acquisition of their land, at the instance of respondent No. 4 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari. A request for acquisition of the land, for the construction of 2km long road from Ramsar -ka -kuwa School to the Bus -stand of Ramsar -ka -kuwa was made to the Collector on 11th November, 1970. A resolution of the Panchayat Samjti duted October 10, 1970 was submitted to the Collector, The petitioners gave the description of their land in para 1 of the writ petition. The Collector then forwarded the matter to the State Government and, thereupon, the State Governmeut issued an order requiring the Sub -Divisional Officer, Barmer to proceed under under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A notice was issued, stating that land is required for public purpose i.e. for construction of a road in village Rawatsar, Tehsil Barmer, The land comprised of Khasra No. 766 was also mentioned in the notice. The Sub -Divisional Officer conducted the enquiry, reported the matter to the State Government and a notice was issued to the petitioners, as well as public notice was also issued inviting objections. The objections were heard and thereafter, a report was submitted to the State Government recommending the construction of the road through the petitioners field Khasra No. 766. Thereafter, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act vide Gazette notification dated January 4, 1973. The Sub -Divisional Officer than issued notices to the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act for filing any objections in respect of the measurement of the land and compensation etc. The petitioners submitted their objections on December 11, 1972. On the fixed date i.e. December 13, 1972, the petitioners did not appear and they also did not appear on the adjourned date of December 13, 1972, the petitioners did not appear and they also did not appear on the adjourned date of 30th December, 1972 or any other subsequent dates and finally on April 6, 1973 the Land Acquisition Officer made an award. According to the petitioners, in the month of March 1981 the petitioners were told by the staff of Public Works Department that the Executive Engineer, PWD (D&P;), Barmer is taking stops for constructing a road through Khasra No. 766. Thereupon, on enquiry, the petitioners case to know that 4 K.M. gravel approach road from Ramsar -ka -kuwa to village Rawatsar has been proposed by the Executive Engineer and necessary amount has also been allotted by the Collector. The petitioners than filed a revenue suit in the court of Sub -Divisional Officer, Barmer under Sections 188 and 92(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for permanent injunction against the Executive Engineer, PWD (D&P;), Barmer, the Chief Engineer, PWD (D&P;) Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Tehsildar, Barmer. In that suit, the written statement was filed. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. However, the Sub -Divisional Officer expressed that he is unable to issue any any temporary injunction as he himself in his capacity as a Land Acquisition Officer gave the award on April 6, 1973. The Sub -Divisional Officer handed over the attested copy of the award to the petitioner Khangararam and his counsel Bharatmal Solanki on July 8, 1981. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition file was inspected and it came to the notice of the petitioners that the Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari failed to provide the compensation amount specified in the award. Thereupon, the Collector, Barmer filed the papers and took no proceedings. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari (respondent No. 4) by his letter dated July 28, 1975 informed the Collector that there is no provision for funds, for making compensation to the cultivators. The petitioner's main ground of attack is that they were given notice of the award on July 8, 1981 after a lapse of more than 8 years, This has resulted in depriving the petitioners from getting due amount of compensation. It was stated that as a result of a long delay, the compensation which the petitioners would be paid on their dispossession of the land will have no substantial relation to the value of the land prevailing at present. During these 8 years the price of the land has gone very high. The dilatory nature of the proceedings has acted so oppressively on the petitioners as to make the compensation awarded to them really no compensation at all. The petitioners prayed that the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 6, and subsequent proceedings and the award dated April 6, 1973 and all further proceedings may be quashed.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. I to 5 submitted reply to the show cause notice, wherein it was stated that the execution of the proposal for constructing the road was included in the Crash Project of 1971 -72 and necessary notifications were issued. The construction of the road could not be carried under the Crash Project, which has resulted in its postponement. As such no immediate step was taken. The petitioners continued to remain in possession and cultivated the land. During the year 1981, in the Famine Project, the construction of the said road was undertaken and the road has in fact been constructed upto the land of the petitioners on both the sides and only that portion has remained to be constructed over the land in dispute because the petitioner is causing obstruction. It was stated, that on 7th July, 1981, possession has been taken over vide Anx. R/4. It was also stated that merely because the petitioners were allowed to continue in possession because of the postponement of the proposed scheme of constructing the road, the acquisition proceedings can not come to an end nor the land, which has been validly acquired in accordance with law goes out of acquisition. It was stated that it is a mis -conception of the petitioners that the construction of the road is being done by the Panchayat Samiti. The road is to be constructed by the Public Works Department at the State Govt. expenses. The petitioner's averments regarding the rise in price of the land upto Rs. 500/ -per bigha were denied and it was stated that the rate of the land in the area where the disputed land is situated was not more than Rs. 13/ - per bigha at the relevant time and that has been awarded to the petitioners. The delay in taking possession of the land has been to the benefit of the petitioners in as much as the petitioners have enjoyed fruits of the land for more than 8 years, possession of which could have been taken as back as 1973. The petitioners can not make any grievance on this score. The respondents raised an objection that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that there has been laches on the part of the petitioners. The delay in the case is fatal to the petitioners. It was also stated that the lands of the other persons were also acquired and they have surrendered their land for construction of the road even without claiming compensation voluntarily in the larger interest of the village. The extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to,be invoked to frustrate the work of public utility. It was prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) IT may be stated that the only ground pressed before me in this petition is that the petitioners were served with the award as late as 1981 and so it will be deemed that the award has been made on July 8, 1981. As such there has been considerable delay in making the award, so the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground alone because the petitioners would be paid compensation at the rate, which was prevailing some 8 years back and not at the rate when the award was served on the petitioners.