GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the petitioners Gopal Singh and surat Singh are Khatedars of Khasra Nos. 41 and 36 respectively, situated in village Redi, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. In 1955, Panchayat Gajoowas, which also exercised jurisdiction over village Redi, came to the conclusion that the abadi area of village Redi should be extended by acquiring some agricultural land adjoining the inhabited area in order to convert it for purposes of habitation. It, therefore, wrote to the Tehsildar, Taranagar for acquiring land for the said purpose. The matter was how ever dropped after about four years by order of the collector, Churu dt. 15th January, 1959. Thereafter in December, 1959, the Tehsildar, Taranagar again recommended to the Collector for acquiring the land for the said purpose. The Collector, in turn, wrote to the Government and the government issued a notification (Ex. A) dt. 11th August, 1960 under Section 4 (1)of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (No. 24 of 1953) (hereinafter called "the act" ). This notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 29th september, 1960. The petitioners presented an application (Ex. C) dated 3rd november, 1960 to the Collector, Churu, raising certain objections against the acquisition of their land.

(3.) THE petitioners have contested the legality of the proceedings taken after the publication of the said notification. It is urged in the first instance that under section 4 (1) of the Act it was necessary for the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of the said notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality, but no such public notice was issued by him and thus the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with. It is next urged that even though no such notice was issued by the Collector the petitioners, when they came to know of the notification, presented their objections before the Collector on 3rd november, 1960. These objections ought to have been considered by the Collector and the petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard either in person or by their pleader but no such opportunity was given to them and thus he contravened the provisions of Section 5-A, of the Act. The petitioners proceed to say that under Section 5-A of the Act it was further necessary for the Collector to forward all the objections raised by the petitioners together with the proceedings of the enquiry made by him and he should have also sent a report containing; his recommendations on the objections raised by the petitioners. It was only on the basis of this data that the Government could give its decision under Section 5-A of the Act. It is pointed out by the petitioners that since the Collector failed to discharge his part of the duty and the papers containing the petitioners objections and his recommendations were not forwarded to the Government, the Government had no opportunity to base its decision thereon. The petitioners' second objection thus relates to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act.