MANGAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and has arisen in the following circumstances: - A Notification was issued by the then Government of Jaipur on the 7th of February, 1949, under sec. 4 of the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act that a Nohara of Mangal Chand petitioner, situated in Beri-ka-Bas was likely to be needed for the public purpose of a girls' school, known as "veer Balika Vidyalaya". A second Notification under sec. 6 of the Act was issued by the Rajasthan Government on the 19th August, 1949, declaring that the land was required for the said girls' school, and the compensation was to be awarded out of the public funds. It also authorised the Land Acquisition Officer unde sec. 7 of the Act to take further proceeding for the acquisition of the land, These proceedings continued till the 1st of February, 1950, when the Land Acquisition Officer gave an award under sec. 11 of the Act, and fixed Rs 4,599/- as compensation, and declared Mangal Ram as the person entitled to receive it. He rejected the claims of certain other persons. Proceedings for taking of possession continued, and Mangal Ram was asked to surrender his documents of title. He asked for time on more than one occasion to deposit the title deed and thereafter to receive the money, and ultimately filed this petition challenging the validity of the proceedings of acquisition of his property by the Government.

(2.) THE sole ground for challenging the acquisition, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under the provision to sec. 6 (1) of the Act no declaration could be made unless the compensation to be awarded for the acquisition of the property was to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority, and it is urged that none of these conditions were fulfilled in the present case. It was stated that the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was actually deposited by the Management of the Veer Balika Vidyalaya and not from the sources mentioned in the proviso, and, therefore, the acquisition was illegal.