SURAJMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 17 appeals are directed against an order of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writs petitions wherein the validity of the Land Acquisitions Act and the acquisitions made thereunder were challenged.

(2.) WITHIN the Municipal limits of Jaipur there are two villages named Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpur. Lands belonging to the appellants were notified for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the planned development of the city of Jaipur at the behest of the Urban Improvement Board (abbreviated as 'u. IB. ') Jaipur. On 29-7-1959 the Chairman of the U. I. B. visited the site accompanied by the Land Acquisition Officer Mr. K. G. Gupta and passed verbal orders that steps be taken for its acquisition. On December 8, 1959 the Secretary, Local Self Government, was requested to issue a notification under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquision Act, 1953 (hereinafter called "the Acquisition Act". A notice under sec. 4 of the Acquisition Act was issued on May 13, 1953, which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on June 9, 1960. No objection was made under sec. 5a disputing the existence of the public purpose as notified in sec. 4 of the Acquisition Act. Accordingly a notification under sec. 6 of the Acquisition Act was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on May 11, 1961. Soon thereafter on July 18, 1961 notices under sec. 9 of the Acquisition Act were issued to the persons interested. 65 claims were presented before the Land Acquisition Officer including the one by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant Surajmal. The Officer made an award on January 9, 1954 which is Ex. R. 3 on the record. It was amended on July 9, 1964. Early in 1977 notices were issued to the appellants to take compensation, hand over the possession and further to take possession of such parcels of land which were allotted to some of them. This is Ex. 3 in Surajmal's case. Similar notices were issued in other cases.

(3.) WE might also notice a case of our own court Purshotam Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan (20) where Tyagi J. declined to interfere because the notification under sec. 6 was challenged 4 years after its issuance. The matter was agitated before us in appeal but we had dismissed the appeal in limini. (See D B. Appeal No. 265/1972, decided on July 25, 1972 ). The matter was taken up before their Lordships of the Supreme Court Special Leave Petition No. 2250/72 and it was decided on 22-9-1972. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. In the case before us the petitions have been preferred about 9 years after the notification u/s. 6 as already noticed and it is a case which is worse than that of Purshottamlal 20 ).