OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the notifications dated 5th November, 1976 (Annexure 4), dated 16th February, 1977 (Annexure 5), and notice dated 25th March, 1977, (Annexure 6) and further for restoration o the possession of the disputed land, if the petitioners are dispossessed during the pendency of the writ petition.

(2.) A joint writ petition was filed, by Om Prakash, Rajendra Kumar, Suresh kumar, Smt Sushila, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Suchitra Devi in respect of Khasras nos. 419, 420, 421, 422 and 423 (old) corresponding to new Khasras Nos. 516, 517, 518, 519 and 520 respectively, admeasuring 3 Bighas 4 Biswas, 5 Biswas, 1 Bigha 7 Biswas, 5 Brwas, and 2 Bighas 8 Biswas respectively. This writ petition when came up for hearing an objection was taken on behalf of the non-petitioners that the joint writ petition was not competent as the petitioners have no common and joint interest in all the Khasras mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thereupon, accepting the objection prayed to permit him to confine the writ petition to Khasras 516/419, 517/420 on behalf of all the petitioners 'excepting Rajendra Kumar and prayed that Rajendra Kumar's name be deleted from the array of the petitioners. This court by its order dated 1st August, 1977, accepted the prayer and directed that the writ petition shall be taken to have been filed in respect of Khasras Nos. 516/419 and 517/420 by om Prakash, Suresh Kumar, Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Suchitra Devi only.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners the aforesaid Khasras of land were purchased by them from Sarva Shri Pritam Kumar, Vinay Kumar, Tota Lal, Sunder Lal, Hiralal, parma Lal, Ganeshilal and Jai Kumar and the above mentioned lands have since been mutated in their names. The petitioners aver in the petition that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Acquisition Act') was issued by the State government declaring its intention that the aforesaid lands are needed for a public purpose vide Government notification dated 30-10-1976. Thereafter a further notification dated 7th January, 1977, purporting to have been made under Section 4 (5) (ii) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the land Acquision Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Beawer. This notification was accompanied by the notification A/2 under Section 4 (5) (i) of the Land acquisition Act wherein description of lands in question was shown. By another notification dated 7-1-1977 the petitioners were required to submit the objections against the acquisition of land, if they have any, within a period of 30 days. Yet another notification was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra under the signature of the collector, Ajmer. Under this notification the Collector has declared that the lands in question were required for the purpose of Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and that the is of the opinion that the acquisition of the aforesaid lands is urgently required and so the provisions of Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act are dispensed with. The copy of this notification is Annexure 6. Further a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued which was served on the petitioners on various dates. According to the petitioners the objections were preferred by them but the same came to be rejected by the land Acquisition Officer, Beawer, by his order dated 12th April, 1977. A certified copy of this order has been placed on record and is marked Annexure 7. In this order it has been categorically stated that the possession of the lands in question have been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer by beat of drum. The petitioner, however, in face of this categorical order asserted that he has not been dispossessed and he still retains the physical possession of the land. The petitioner amongst others challenged the above notifications broadly on the ground that the Collector could not have issued notification under Section 6, or under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, all the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated as they are illegal, ultra vires of the powers of the Collector. Other grounds relating to the dispensing with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act and connected matters have been raised but they need not be stated in elaborate manner as will be shown later on.