PUSHPA DEVI MALOO Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed with the prayer that the notification dated 06.11.2008, published under Section 20A(1) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1989') be declared lapsed in view of the failure of the competent authority to notify the declaration under Section 20E(1) of the Act of 1989 within a period of one year thereafter. The further relief prayed for is that consequent to the lapsing of notification dated 06.11.2008, further proceedings for acquisition of the petitioner's land be declared without authority of law and the award dated 25.02.2011 be declared null and void.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1549, 1550 and 1551 in Ward No.3 of Abaadi area, Gram Naraina, Tehsil Fulera, District Jaipur. It is submitted that the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Central Government vide notification dated 06.11.2008, issued under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 in the official Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (ii), notified its intention/proposal to acquire the petitioner' land for public purpose. The substance of the notification dated 06.11.2008 was published in two local newspapers one "Rajasthan Patrika" and the other "Dainik Bhaskar" on 21.06.2009 and 22.06.2009 respectively i.e. seven and half months after the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette as the petitioner's counsel emphasised. On 20.07.2009, the petitioner submitted detailed objections to the acquisition of her land. However, the said objections were disposed of on 07.08.2009 which according to the petitioner was without application of mind to the substance of the objections raised by her. It is submitted that the Central Government thereafter followed up the notification dated 06.11.2008 and its publication in two local newspapers on 21.06.2009 and 22.06.2009 respectively by way of a notification dated 23.01.2010 under Section 20E(1) of the Act of 1989 and issued a declaration that the petitioner's land was to be acquired for the purpose mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 20A of the Act of 1989. The petitioner submits that she filed objections on 03.11.2010 and 08.11.2010 before the LAO (SDO), Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur objecting to the legality and maintainability of the acquisition proceedings on the allegation that with the elapsing of period of one year from the date of notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 on 06.11.2008, proceedings under Section 20E(1) of the Act of 1989 and declaration thereunder on 23.01.2010 were wholly vitiated and contrary to the specific provisions of the Act of 1989. The said objections of the petitioner were however rejected by the LAO vide order dated 20.01.2011. It is on record that subsequent to the rejection of the petitioner's objections dated 03.11.2010 and 08.11.2010, an award came to be passed on 25.02.2011. The present petition was filed on 02.06.2011.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has founded his case of challenging the acquisition proceedings on the submission that in terms of Section 20E(3) of the Act of 1989 where in respect of any land, a notification has been gazetted under Sub-section 1 of Section 20A for its acquisition, but no declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 20E has been made within a period of one year from the date of gazetting of that notification, the said notification under Section 20A(1) is to cease to have any effect with the consequence of legal abandonment of the acquisition proceedings. Counsel would submit consequent to the chronology of the case wherein notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 was gazetted on 06.11.2008 and the declaration under Section 20E(1) was made on 23.01.2010, the entire acquisition proceedings qua the petitioner's land were thereafter vitiated having lapsed in view of Sub-section 3 of Section 20E of the Act of 1989. Counsel would further submit that the publication of the substance of notification under Section 20A(1) under Subsection 4 thereof is of no effect for the purposes of determining the period of one year as provided for under Sub-section 3 of Section 20E of the Act of 1989. Counsel further submits that the publication of the substance of the notification under Sub-section 1 of Section 20A in terms of Sub-section 4 thereof cannot be the point of terminus for computing the period of one year within which the declaration has to be made.