SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN objection was taken by Mr. Mehta that the petition has been filed after about 18 years of the award and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

(2.) MR . B.L. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the case has checkered history, inasmuch as the land in question of Nohra No. 5 situated in village Baggad was proposed to be acquired under the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act, 1943 as per Noification dated 15.5.1946 and on the representation of the petitioner and in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the representatives of Seth Vishwambhar Lal, the proceedings were dropped on 24.3.1947. Thereafter, fresh proceedings were initiated on 20.8.1949 and these proceedings were also infructuous and the matter was recommended to be dropped on 23rd June 1952. Thereafter the proceedings were initiated for the 3rd time on 10.2.1956 when the notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued and objections were submitted by the petitioner, who is alleged not to have been heard and thus without complying the provisions of Section 5 -A, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued, on 29.12.1981. The S.D.O., Jhunjhunu who was acting as Land Aoquistion Officer ceased to have the power of Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, the matter was transferred to the Collector, Jhunjhunu. where also the petitioner submitted objections and the same were again sent to the Sub Divisional Official, Jhunjhunu, who in the absence of the parties have recorded on 19.3.1964 that the entire proceedings are completed any only award is to be given. Ultimately, award was given on 12.4.1964. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the S.D.O. was acting in collusion with Seth Vishambher Dayal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Prakash Chand Kasliwal v. Union of India 1986 RLR 492 whrein it was held that detention under Cofee -posa being abinito void, no proceedings at all can be taken under the Act of 1946 and the objection of delay cannot be sustained. In this case, the documents relied upon and the grounds of detention were not supplied to the petitioner along with the order of detention. This judgment has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case.