BHIKAM CHAND SURANA CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The challenge in the writ petition is on the ground, that the acquisition proceedings have not been taken by the Collector and it is the Land Acquisition Officer who has taken all the proceedings of acquisition and thus, the Officer who has done all the exercise falls short of the authorization which his required with the person who conducts the acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the L.A. Act"). The petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagrup Singh and 3 others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in WLC, (RAJ) UC 2002 page 776 wherein this Court has held as under: -

(2.) THE respondents in the reply have come up with the answer that by a general notification which has been filed by the State in the case of Sajni Devi & others vs. State and Ors, (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 5571/2004) Powers of the Collector have been vested in the Sub Divisional Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer to exercise in the respective jurisdictions. This notification was issued by the State Government on 2nd of May, 1997. The notification is quoted hereinbelow:

(3.) PETITIONER in this context has relied upon many cases but one of the case which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the matter of Abdul Hussain Tayabali etc. vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in : AIR 1968 SC 432, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -