USMAN ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of land of the petitioner's wife in respect whereof notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 16.05.2008, followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 04.11.2008 and in respect whereof an award has been passed on 06.10.2009 by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter 'LAO').

(2.) AT the outset, Mr. R.D. Rastogi, appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, appearing for respondent No.4 have pointed out that land in respect of which the present writ petition has been filed and which has been acquired under the award dated 06.10.2009 is not in the khatedari of the petitioner Usman Ali, but one Maksuda Bano albeit the wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that Maksuda Bano in response to the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 issued on 16.05.2008 had filed her objections under Section 5A thereof on 17.06.2008 confined to the measurement of the land in her khatedari which was under section 4 notification was shown as 5 Bigha 1 Biswa when in fact her khatedari was limited to 2 Bigha and 8 Biswani in khasra No.2026. It is submitted that no objection with regard to the public purpose of acquisition was filed by Maksuda Bano. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 purportedly filed by the petitioner allegedly as a person interested only by virtue of being the husband of Maksuda Bano and annexed to the writ petition, were in fact never presented before the Land Acquisition Officer nor receipted and that the petitioner has committed forgery and perjury in relying upon the said objections dated 17.06.2008 under his own hand. It has been submitted that in fact the petitioner only by virtue of being the husband of Maksuda Bano, the recorded khatedar, would have no right to file objections in his own name and it is for this reason that in the list of khatedars / person interested, who had indeed filed objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 against the notification under Section 4 on 16.05.2008, name of Maksuda Bano has been shown and that of the petitioner not recorded. Counsel for the respondents further submit that objection to the public purpose of acquisition having been taken by Maksuda Bano in her purported objections of 17.06.2008, it entailed waiver of her right to challenge the public purpose intent under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. The consequential notification / declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 issued on 04.11.2008 thus operates as "conclusive evidence " of the public purpose of acquisition under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1894. The recorded khatedar Maksuda Bano has also filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for enhancement of compensation – which tantamounts to her acquiescence to the acquisition of her land subsequent to which the writ petition should not be entertained. It is submitted on the aforesaid ground, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.