NOOR MOHD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned notification dated 9.8.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 14.3.1995. Learned counsel Shri Maheshwari for the petitioner submitted that after issuing the notification under Section 4(1} of the Act the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to file their objections under Section 5-A of the Act, therefore, on this ground alone the impugned notifications under Section 4 and 6 are required to be set aside. However, learned counsel Shri Arora for the respondent Municipal Board vehemently submitted that the notification was already issued in 1992, but its publication was made only in 1994 in the news paper and according to the judgment of Apex Court in case of Rarn Bhai Lakh Bhai Bhaki v. State of Gujarat and other, the last date of publication in news paper has to be taken into consideration. The same was published in 'Rajasthan Patrika Daily' on 9.8.1994 and 'Rajasthan Dainik' Udaipur on 7.8.1994, thereafter, on 23.2.1993 notification under Section 6 was issued, therefore, it was issued within one year. After the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 25.2.1992 and notice was given to the petitioners to which they have filed objection under Section 5A of the Act on 26.3.1992. Considering their objections the notification under Section 4(1) was issued and published in 1994 though it was earlier published in March, 1992. He, therefore, submitted that having considered the objections of the petitioners there was no need for the State Government to hear the objections of the petitioners once again after notification under Section 4(1) was issued once again on 9.8.1994.

(2.) If this argument of Mr. Arora is to be accepted then admittedly notification under Section 6 was issued after the period of one year. Because, if Section 4(1) notification was published on 25.2.1992 then Section 6 notification has to be issued within one year. In this case, notification under Section 6 was issued on 23.2.1995 which was admittedly after one year. Therefore, on this ground alone this writ petition was required to be allowed and both the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 were required to be quashed. However, the submission of Mr. Arora was that the last date of publication in the news paper was 9.8.1994, therefore, the limitation of one year is to be counted from that date and according to that the notification under Section 6 was issued within time. In this case, a strange situation is there where Section 4 notification was issued twice, once on 25.2.1992 and second time on 9.8.1994. Section 4 notification could only be issued once, it can be issued only after the first notification is quashed or withdrawn by the State Govt. itself. Here, in this case notification under Section 4 was issued once again on 9.8.1994. Therefore, if the argument of Mr. Arora is to be accepted that date of issuance of notification under Section 4 has to be considered as 9.8.1994 then there was no opportunity given to the petitioners to file their objections under Section 5A of the Act. Hence, on this ground, this writ petition was required TO be allowed and impugned notification under Section 4 and 6 were required to be quashed.

(3.) In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned notification issued under Section 4 on 9.8.1994 (Annex. 7) and notification issued under Section 6 on 23.2.1995 are hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.