AMARJEET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, widow of late Brigadier Shri Satyawan Singh and her two sons Col. Guru Pratap Singh and Col. Harindera Singh, who are both Colonel in the Indian Army, way back in 1998, challenging the notification dated 11.07.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award dated 09.01.1995 by which the land was acquired. The aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued, apart from other land, to acquire the land of Khasra No. 371/2 measuring 1 bigha in village Devkheda, Tehsil and District Alwar, which the petitioner No. 1 jointly purchased with her husband late Brigadier Satyawan Singh Dhillon by registered sale deed dated 12.06.1978 from Smt. Ram Pyari. The said land was mutated in their favour. According to the petitioners, they constructed a residential house in the said land comprising of six rooms, one kitchen, one toilet, one latrine. They also constructed a staircase, drawing room and two huts along-with two stores, which were also constructed for livestock. The petitioners also planted about 200 permanent trees like Sheesham, Gulmohar, Eucalyptus. They also raised a 'pucca' wall on the land in question where electricity motor has been installed. All these constructions were made in the year 1983. Unfortunately late Brigadier Satyawan Singh met with an accident and died on 25.11.1989. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 then also became owner of the property and mutation was accordingly corrected. Respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar framed a scheme known as 'Warehousing & Godown Scheme' and wrote to the State Government for acquiring the land for that purpose. The State Government issued notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') on 11.07.1991, which was published in the official gazette on 19.12.1991. The notification was issued in the name of Brigadier Satyawan Singh, although he had already died in the year 1989. Though the petitioner No. 1 filed objection under Section 5-A of the Act but the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were deprived of their right whereas mutation had already been attested in their favour on 12.12.1989 by the Tehsildar, Alwar. The objection of the petitioner No. 1 was that the Warehousing & Godown Scheme was not a proper scheme. It was not notified by the State Government and that there was violation of Sections 29 and 38 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act. Another objection was that the notification has been issued in the name of a dead person, whereas two sons of the petitioner No. 1 were recorded khatedars, to whom no notice had been given. Third objection was that a constructed house existed on the land in question since 1983 and entire family is residing there. The Land Acquisition Officer inspected the site and actually found the constructed house, well, huts and shed for poultry farm in the entire land. The planned scheme was also looked into and it was found that the disputed land was outside the boundary of the scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer accepted the objection submitted by the petitioners and proposed to the Government to exclude the land of the petitioners from acquisition and also stated that the representative of the Urban Improvement Trust has informed him that the Urban Improvement Trust would have no objection if the land of the petitioner is excluded from the acquisition.

(2.) The respondents, however, issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 07.05.1993, which was published in daily local newspaper 'Vichar Times' on 18.09.1993 seeking to acquire the aforesaid land. This time again, the notification was issued in the name of late Brigadier Satyawan Singh. The respondent UIT then issued notice under Section 9 of the Act dated 20.11.1993 for determination of compensation. Then the Land Acquisition Officer finally passed the award on 09.01.1995 holding the petitioners entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,84,680/- as compensation. The petitioners filed a civil suit on the premise that the acquisition proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice and, therefore, it should be declared null and void. The suit was accompanied by an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Court vide order dated 23.12.1993 decided the application of the petitioners and ordered that the Land Acquisition Officer would follow the procedure of law, in particular Section 6 of the Act and petitioners were given liberty to challenge any action taken by him. Petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment before the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar, who by his order dated 17.12.1994 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. questioning the maintainability of the suit. The petitioners then filed an application seeking to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh. The Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Judge stating therein that he has taken possession of the land on 13.01.1997.

(3.) Shri Ashok Gaur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, argued that the acquisition proceedings are wholly illegal and incompetent as both the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been issued in the name of a dead person. The notification under section 4 was issued on 11.07.1991 whereas late Brigadier Satyawan Singh died in an accident, which took place on 25.11.1989. Despite objections filed to the first notification by the petitioner No. 1, the respondents again issued notification under Section 6 of the Act in the name of a dead person. The proceedings are therefore void ab initio and are liable to be set aside. It was argued that even though the land was mutated in favour of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 but they were deprived of filing objection under Section 5-A of the Act. The land acquisition proceedings thus stood vitiated. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of this argument, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.I.S. Employees House Building Coop. Society Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2005 12 SCC 483. Shri Ashok Gaur, learned Senior Counsel argued that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.07.1991 whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 07.05.1993. The award was passed on 09.01.1995. It was further argued that the award has not been passed within two years of the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. The land acquisition proceedings should be declared to have lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Act.