NIRMAL KUMAR AJMERA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the Notification dt. 08.01.1991, published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short) and the Declaration dt. 17.04.1993, published under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioners are son of Shri Bithal Das Ajmera. On 27.07.1953, Shri Bithal Das Ajmera bought a piece of land falling in khasra No. 16 Village Vijay Mahal, near Jal Mahal area in Jaipur. The said land was initially mutated in his name. Unfortunately, in 1972 both Bithal Das Ajmera and his wife expired. Since the petitioners were their surviving legal heirs, both the petitioners jointly inherited khatedari rights in the said land. The Tehsildar, Jaipur carried out the necessary mutation proceedings. He mutated their names in the revenue records of 15.04.1974. In order to develope the area around Jal Mahal and to install a ropeway from Nahargarh Peak to the Jal Mahal area, the Government published a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 08.01.1991. It was published in the State Gazette on 17.10.1991. The State Government also issued and served a notice dt. 27.04.1992 in the name of Bithal Das Ajmera. Through the notice, the Land Acquisition Officer, JDA, Jaipur invited objections from Shri Bithaldas in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha comprised in Khasra No. 16. Ultimately, the notice was served upon the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their initial objections on 23.05.1992 and supplementary objections on 21.09.1992. Subsequently, on 17.04.1993, the State Government published a declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published it in the extra-ordinary Gazette of the State of Rajasthan on 19.04.1993. According to the petitioners, the notification and the declaration are absolutely vague. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Before entering into the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is imperative to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Mr. S.N. Kumawat, the learned AAG for the State. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners have already filed their reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is no longer maintainable. For, through this writ petition, the petitioners have merely challenged the Notification and the Declaration mentioned above.