RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner has filed this writ petition for seeking relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification dt. 25. 9. 80 issued u/s. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', notification dt. 11. 3. 81 (Annex. 1) issued simultaneoulsy u/s. 17 (4) and Sec. 6 and the notice dated 30. 6. 81 issued u/s. 9 (1) of the Act and to quash all the proceedings initiated against him in pursuance of the said notification and for issuance of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking possession of his land.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that he is the Khatedar and in cultivatory possession of agricultural land comprising of Kila Nos. 6/11,7 to 14, 15/11, 16/11, 17 and 24 and 25/11 total area eighteen bighas of square No. 49 (Old No. 36) situated in chak 1a Minor, Tehsil Sriganganagar. THE Dy. Secretary,local Self Govt. ,raj. , Jaipur issued a notification u/s. 4 (1) of the Act on 25. 9. 80, published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra, manifesting the intention of the State Govt. to acquire the aforementioned land of the petitioner alongwith other lands of so many other persons. THE petitioner claims that no notice was issued to him in respect of the said notification. However, a notice inviting objections u/s. 5 (A) of the Act was received by one Ramesh Kumar and it was through him that the petitioner knew that the objections were being invited from the persons interest in the land purported to be acquired by the State Govt. THE petitioner,therefore,filed his objections u/s. 5-A of the Act on 31. 12. 80 before the S. D. O.-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Sri Ganganagar. Another notification (Annex. 1) u/s. 17 (4) of the Act came to be issued on 11. 3. 81 and the same was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 14. 5. 81 i. e. more than after two months. THE said notification proclaimed that the land already notified in the notification issued u/s. 4 of the Act is required for the public purpose and in turn to be placed at the disposal of the municipality, Sri Ganganagar. By the said notification, the State Govt. by exercising powers u/s. 17 (4) further dispensed-with the enquiry u/s. 5-A of the Act. THE notification (Annex. l) also made a declaration u/s. 6 of the Act that the lands enumerated & referred to in the notification are necessary to be acquired for expansion of urbanisation. In pursuance of notification Annex. 1, a notice dt. 30. 6. 81 (Annex. 2) u/s. 9 (l) of the Act was also issued by the Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the affected and interested persons to file their claims for compensation by 23rd July,1981. THE petitioner alleges that the said notification Annex,2 was also not served upon him. THE petitioner challenges the notification dt. ll. 3. 81 (Annex. l) mainly on the ground that the State Govt. has not applied its mind nor formed its opinion u/s. 17 (1) of the Act, that it was a case of emergency and that the land enumerated in notification issued u/s. (4) of the Act is waste or arable land. On the other hand, notification Annex. l is conspicuously silent about the aforementioned basic ingredients. He asserts that the provisions of Sec. l7 (4) of the Act are subject to the provisions of sub sec. (1) of sec. 17 and in the notification Annex. 1 and that it has also not been mentioned that it has been issued by the State Govt. under the purported exercise of its powers u/s. 17 (1) of the Act. THE petitioner,therefore,maintains that the notification Annex. 1 is ultravires of the provisions of the Act and that the purpose for which the land is being acquired i. e. for expansion of the urbanisation, cannot be termed as an urgent or emergent purpose. THE petitioner reiterates that his land sought to be acquired is neither a waste land nor arable land; because the Collector, Sri Ganganagar has already converted one parcel of his land, situated just adjacent to the notified land to be acquired, for the purpose of construction of a cinema hall vide his order dated 16. 11. 78 (Annex. 3) and that in pursuance thereof, he has already constructed the skeleton of the cinema hall. THE petitioner maintains that the issuance of a composite notification issued u/s. l7 (4) dispensing-with the enquiry u/s. 5a and making declaration u/s. 6 of the Act is also bad in law. THE petitioner further reiterates that notification u/s. l7 (4) of the Act (Annex. 1)- was issued on 11. 3. 81,whereas it was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 14. 5. 81 with a gap of more than two months and that this very fact shows that it was not at all a case of emergency and that the notifications dt. 25. 9. 80 and 11. 3. 81 are bad,invalid and illegal in as much as those have been issued in total violation of the principles of natural justice, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and also ultfavires of the articles 14,21 and 300 A of the Constitution. THE petitioner,therefore,prays for relief of certiorari and prohibition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. H. R. Panwar,learned Addl. G. A. , despiteumpteen opportunities, has not filed any reply. He has contended that the opinion of the State Govt. u/s. l7 (4) of the Act pre-supposes that it was a case of emergency; that the land to be acquired by it was waste or arable land and that the same can not be challenged in the court. He has however clearly conceded that in notification dt. 11. 3. 81 Annex. l, there is no mention of the purported exercise of the State Govt's power u/s. l7 (l) of the Act. According to him, since the notification has been issued in purported exercise of power u/s. 17 (4) of the Act, it should be presumed that it is a case of urgency and that the land sought to be acquired is waste or arable land and, as such, the notification Annex. l is neither illegal nor bad nor ultravires of the provisions. In support of his contention, Mr. Panwar has cited the following cases: Murari Lal Gupta Vs. The State of Punjab (5), Sellappa Gounder and anr. Vs. State of Madras (6), State of U. P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. (7); and Ajit Singh etc. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. "