HEERA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition for writ, filed on 26.10.2006, the petitioner seeks the reliefs of quashing the land acquisition notification dated 13.04.1982 (Annex.1); of declaration that the land covered by the said notification does not vest in the State Government but is liable to be restored to the person from whom taken; and of directions that the respondents may hand him over possession of the land admeasuring 48 bighas and 11 biswas at village Jhalamand, Tehsil and District Jodhpur.

(2.) While claiming the reliefs aforesaid, the petitioner has submitted that the land in question was acquired under the said notification dated 13.04.1982 (Annex.1) by invoking urgency clause per Section 17 (4) of the then existing Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 ('the Act of 1953') without there being actual urgency; and then, the land acquisition proceedings were completed by making an award dated 17.01.1984 (Annex.2). The petitioner has also indicated the fact that though the notification was issued for acquisition of 302 bighas and 9 biswas of land but the award was made for 350 bighas of land; and some incongruity regarding measurement has also been referred but that part of the matter needs no dilatation in this order for the limited grounds on which this writ petition has been pressed on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) It has essentially been contended that the petitioner came to know from the news items that the land acquired under the said notification (Annex.1) had not been utilised by the State Government for the purpose for which it was acquired, i.e., for the purpose of establishing a sewerage treatment plant and that the land was still lying vacant without any use. It is alleged that there was no urgency in the matter nor the land in question could have been used for sewerage treatment plant; and the action of acquiring the land was nothing but a fraud on the agriculturists. It is further submitted that the Public Health Engineering Department ('PHED') for whom the said acquisition was made expressed its disinclination for the land in question and demanded the land at some other place for sewerage treatment plant and such land was indeed acquired at the other place, i.e., at village Salawas and was handed over to the PHED. It is submitted that the PHED surrendered the land in question to the State Government and in all fairness, the same should have been restored to the person from whom it was taken. A copy of the report handing over possession by the PHED to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur has been placed on record as Annexure-5.