RAM CHANDRA KASLIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge rendered in SB Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8191/2002 & 8184/2002, to the extent the notification dated July 10, 2002, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the LA Act"), has been upheld.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows: On July 10, 2002, twenty feet wide strip of land on either side of Bhawani Singh Road between Indira Circle and Ram Bagh Circle for the purposes of widening the road was notified by the State under Section 4 of the LA Act. THE Notification was published in the Official Gazette. It was also published on July 27, 2002 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in the locality. Besides, on August 29, 2002, the District Collector, Jaipur caused public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality Pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, persons interested in the land including the appellant submitted their objections to the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) on August 21, 2002. By a notice dated September 16, 2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) invited persons interested in the land to produce oral or documentary evidence in support of their objections. For those persons interested in the land, who had not availed of the earlier opportunity to file objections, the notice invited them to file objections to the acquisition under Section 4 of the LA Act by October 16, 2002. While inquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act was pending, a Notification under Section 17(4) of the LA Act was issued on November 02, 2002 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) dispensing with the provision of Section 5-A of the LA Act in view of the urgency for the acquisition of the land. THEreafter on November 03, 2002, the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) issued a notice under Section 9 of the LA Act whereby the Government expressed its intention to take possession of the land and required the persons having interest therein to prefer their claims for compensation. THE appellants being aggrieved by the issuance of the notifications under Section-4 and Section 17(4) of the LA Act in respect of the land in question, challenged the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. THE learned Single Judge by his judgment & order dated January 10, 2003, partially allowed the writ petition and quashed the Notification dated November 02, 2002 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), issued under Section 17(4) of the LA Act. At the same time, the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the notification dated July 10, 2002 of the State Government issued under Section 4 of the LA Act and gave liberty to the State to continue the inquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act was inter alia based on the contention that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Appropriate Government at the instance of the Jaipur Development Authority (for short "JDA"), which was not competent to deal with the public street/road and it was the Jaipur Municipal Corporation (for short "Municipal Corporation"), which was empowered under Article 243 W of the Constitution of India, read with Section 82 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as "the RM Act") to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land for construction of roads within the municipal areas. Since the Municipal Corporation had not felt the necessity to widen the road in question and had not requested the State to acquire the land, the initiation of proceedings for acquisition of the land were illegal. Another challenge, which was mounted by the appellants on the allegation that no survey was undertaken by the state with regard to the question of necessity for widening of the road, was rejected by the learned Single Judge. Since the acquisition proceedings as a whole were not quashed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the instant appeals seeking setting aside of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge to the extent the aforesaid pleas of the appellants were negatived by the learned Single Judge and the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was held to be valid.

(3.) THE core question for determination is whether the notification issued under Section 4 of the LA Act could be issued by the State only at the instance of the Corporation and not otherwise. Each of the learned counsel for the parties has highlighted some or the other provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution, inserted by Constitution (Seventy-fourth) Amendment Act, 1992, the JDA Act and the RM Act in their bid to search for the answer to the vexed question involved in the appeals. THEse provisions need to be put together at one place to make them easily accessible for facility of immediate reference. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set out the provisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. PART IXA of the Constitution