Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 6392 of 2003. Case: Laxman Lal (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in 3 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 6392 of 2003
CounselFor Appellant: Manu Mridul and Priyambada Sharma, Adv. for Surya Kant, Adv. and For Respondents: Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, Adv. for Milind Kumar, Adv. and Puneet Jain, Adv. for Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.
JudgesR. M. Lodha and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
IssueRajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Sections 4, 4(1), 4(5), 5(A), 5(2), 6, 6(1), 9(1), 17, 17(1), 17(3), 17(4), 17(14); Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 - Sections 1(2), 4(5), 5, 5(1), 5(2), 6, 17(4); Principal Act - Sections 4, 4(5), 6, 6(1); Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1), 5(4), 6, 6(4), 17(1),...
Citation2013 (VII) AD 15 (SC), AIR 2013 SC 1578, 2013 (2) JLJR 100, JT 2013 (3) SC 457, 2013 (2) PLJR 206, 2013 (2) RCR 331 (Civil), 2013 (2) RLW 1220, 2013 (3) SCALE 180, 2013 (3) SCC 764, 2013 (3) WBLR 39 (SC), 2013 ALT (Rev) 192
Judgement DateMarch 01, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

R. M. Lodha, J.

  1. The compulsory acquisition of the land admeasuring 4 bigha and 2 biswa comprised in Khasra No. 1013 at Dungarpur (Rajasthan) is the subject matter of this appeal by special leave. The Appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition of the above land in the High Court. They failed before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench.

  2. The two questions that arise for consideration are:

    (i) Whether preliminary notification Under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, "1953 Act") issued on 01.05.1980 has lapsed since declaration Under Section 6 of that Act was made on 19.03.1987 after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 (for short, "1981 Amendment Act").

    (ii) Whether invocation of power of urgency and dispensation of inquiry Under Section 5-A after 7 years of issuance of preliminary notification Under Section 4 of the 1953 Act are legally sustainable?

  3. The above two questions arise from these facts: on 01.05.1980, the state government issued a preliminary notification Under Section 4 that the subject land was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, construction of bus stand. The state government required and authorised Land Acquisition Officer (SDO), Dungarpur to enter upon, do survey and all other acts necessary to ascertain whether land was suitable for such public purpose and enquire into and ascertain the particulars of the persons interested in such land.

  4. On 19.03.1987, a notification was issued Under Section 6 of the 1953 Act. By that notification the state government also invoked its powers conferred Under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the 1953 Act and dispensed with the provisions of Section 5-A.

  5. An important event occurred between 01.05.1980 and 19.03.1987. The State Legislature following the Ordinance promulgated by the Governor amended the 1953 Act by the 1981 Amendment Act. Effective from 27.06.1981, by the 1981 Amendment Act, Section 6 of 1953 Act was amended and the following proviso in Section 6 was inserted:

    Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notice Under Section 4, Sub-Section 5, given after the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of giving of such notice:

  6. Section 5 of the 1981 Amendment Act provides for validation of certain acquisitions. Sub-Sections 1(b) and (2) thereof, which are relevant for the present controversy, read as follows:

    Section 5. Validation of certain acquisitions.--

    (1) (a) xxx xxx xxx

    (b) any acquisition in pursuance of any notice given Under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act may be made after such commencement and no such acquisition and no action taken or thing done (including any order made, agreement entered into or notice given), whether before or after such commencement, in connection with such acquisition shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the grounds referred to in Clause (a) or any of them.

    (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) no declaration Under Section 6 of the principal Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice Under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act has been given before the commencement of this Act, shall be made after the expiry of two yeas from the commencement of the said Act.

  7. The above acquisition was challenged in three writ petitions before the High Court. One of these writ petitions was filed by Laxman Lal and Manohar Lal. Both these Petitioners are dead and now represented by their legal representatives who are Appellants herein. The challenge to the acquisition was laid on diverse grounds but none of the grounds persuaded the Single Judge and all the three writ petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 11.05.1999.

  8. The order of the Single Judge was challenged in intra-court appeal by the writ Petitioners. Before the Division Bench, the following three points were raised in support of the appeal:

    I) Proceedings could not be continued because notification Under Section 6 of the Act was issued after a lapse of about 7 years. This was in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981. The said provisions provided a limitation of two years from the date of commencement of the Validation Act for issuing the declaration Under Section 6. Since the declaration was issued much beyond this period of limitation the same was liable to be quashed. It was further contended that Section 17(4) notification could not be used to validate the proceedings.

    II) Notice Under Section 17(4) was void ab initio because the Respondents failed to tender payment of 80 percent of compensation as envisaged Under Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act.

    III) The action of the Respondents is highly arbitrary. By issuing a notification Under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1980 the Appellants were being pegged down for purposes of payment of compensation although effectively the acquisition was being made in the year 1987.

  9. Dealing with the first point, the Division Bench held as under:

    It will be seen from the above that a declaration Under Section 6 in respect of the land can be made at any time after the publication of the notification Under Section 4(1). In view of this specific statutory provision which is admittedly applicable, it cannot be said that a declaration Under Section 6 could not have been issued after a lapse of 7 years or more. Learned Counsel for the Appellants fairly conceded that Section 17 is a Code in itself. It contains complete procedure for acquisition made under the said provision. Section 17 is a provision to be resorted to in cases of urgency. Notification Under Section 4 of the Act already stood issued with respect to the land in question as far back as the year 1980. The Government felt the urgency for the acquisition and, therefore, Section 17(4) notification, read with Section 6, was issued on 19.03.1987. We find no illegality in the procedure following in the facts of the case.

  10. It is not necessary to deal with the second ground urged before the Division Bench as it has not been pressed before us. As regards the third ground, the Division Bench held as under:

    Lastly, the Learned Counsel raised an argument suggesting arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents. As already noted, Section 17 permits the Government to invoke its provisions at any time, therefore, there is no statutory bar so far as the action is concerned. If the action of the Respondents results in some hardship to the landowners normally, the provision regarding payment of interest takes care of the hardship. The power of compulsory acquisition of land is in the nature of a power of eminent domain which the State is entitled to exercise keeping in view the larger public interest as against individual interest.

  11. We shall deal with the second question first. Two basic facts are not in dispute, namely, one, preliminary notification Under Section 4 showing intention to acquire the subject land for a public purpose, namely, construction of bus stand was issued by the state government on 01.05.1980 and two, the declaration Under Section 6 of the 1953 Act was made on 19.03.1987 and by means of that very notification the state government exercised its power of urgency Under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) and dispensed with enquiry Under Section 5A. Thus, the power of urgency was invoked for the first time by the state government after seven years of issuance of the preliminary notification Under...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
3 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT