STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SULOCHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dt. 11.12.2000 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3891/1989, whereby the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the house of the respondent named "Lake House", has been annulled. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) SHORTLY put the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal, are that in response to the Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short herein -after referred to as 'the Act'), published on 31.10.1987, the respondent submitted her objections thereto under Sec. 5 -A thereof, challenging the validity of the proceedings sought to be initiated thereby. She contended, inter alia, that she had no other residential house except the one sought to be acquired and that the process lacked bona fide as it was by way of retaliation of a suit instituted by her for ejectment of the public authority in occupation thereof, as a tenant. According to her, though the proceedings before the jurisdictional Collector, entrusted with the duty of hearing the objection, was initially fixed on 23.01.1988, the same got adjourned from time to time and thereafter as it transpired later -on, was transferred to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli, for disposal. The respondent -writ petitioner has pleaded that neither she nor was her advocate informed of this transfer of forum and that eventually it was on the publication of the Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 27.10.1988, that she could learn that it was based on a recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli, under Sec. 5A(2) of the Act. The appellant State in its reply, while asserting that the house in question was sought to be acquired to cater to a public purpose, also refuted the respondent -writ petitioner's imputation that she was denied an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings under Sec. 5A(1) of the Act.

(3.) MR . Shekhawat has argued, with particular reference to the recommendations under Sec. 5A(2) of the Sub Divisional Officer -cum -Land Acquisition Officer, that as it would be apparent therefrom that the respondent -writ petitioner was given ample opportunity as contemplated under Sec. 5A(1) of the Act to substantiate her objections, no conclusion to the contrary as drawn by the learned Single Judge, is sustainable in law and on facts. According to him, the notice of transfer and the date of hearing of the proceedings had been duly served on the respondent -writ petitioner and her advocate Mr. Umakant Bhardwaj, and, therefore, the plea to the contrary is misconceived besides being unfounded. He has argued further that as there was no challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had traversed beyond the framework of the assailment and on that count only the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.