1995 JTR(SC) 1076
1996 AIR(SC) 520 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 4420 ; 1995 4 CurCC(SC) 258 ; 1996 1 ICC 284 ; 1995 8 JT 179 ; 1996 2 RLW(Raj) 15 ; 1995 6 Scale 389 ; 1996 1 SCC 334 ; 1995 Supp4 SCR 710 ; 1996 1 UJ 351 ; 1996 KHC 623
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Yadu Nandan Garg, Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 5315 of 1983,
D/- 1-11-1995.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.9, S.4, S.6, S.16, S.4(1)
RAJASTHAN LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.9, S.4(1), S.16, S.6
(A) The Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, read alongside the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governs the acquisition of land for public purposes, with Section 4(1) empowering the state to publish a preliminary notification acquiring specified parcels, Section 6 requiring a subsequent declaration after finalizing improvement schemes, and Section 9 formalizing the notice of acquisition to the affected party. In this matter, the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was published in 1963 for the planned development of Jaipur city, specifically acquiring lands including Survey No. 265 and its subdivisions, and a declaration under Section 6 was issued in 1991 following the improvement schemes approval. The appellant, who acquired a portion of the land after the 1963 notification and constructed a residential building, received a notice under Section 9 referencing Survey No. 265/1, and subsequent applications for exemption and challenges to the validity of the acquisition were rejected.
(B) Key legal principles include that a purchaser of property after a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) acquires the land subject to the States right of acquisition and cannot claim title to defeat the acquisition; inordinate delay in issuing a declaration under Section 6 does not invalidate the initial notification if the delay is subsequently rectified; the mention of a survey number or its subdivision in the Section 9 notice does not vitiate the validity of the Section 4(1) notification if the main survey number is correctly mentioned; and discrimination claims under Article 14 cannot be sustained where exemptions granted to other parties do not automatically extend to others based on invidious distinction.
Facts of the case:
The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1963 for land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages. The declaration under Section 6 was published in 1991 after an improvement scheme. The appellant purchased 453 sq. yards (3 biswas) in 1970 and constructed a residential house. A notice under Section 9 issued in 1971 referenced Survey No. 265/1. The appellant sought exemption in 1991 unsuccessfully and challenged the acquisition in a writ petition, which was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substance in the contention of inordinate delay, as the appellants purchase post-notification bound him to the acquisition. The exemption granted to Anand Nursery did not create invidious discrimination affecting the appellants claim. The reference to Survey No. 265/1 did not invalidate the notification, as the main survey number was correctly mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification.
Issues:
Whether the delay between the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration vitiates the acquisition; whether the appellant is entitled to exemption similar to Anand Nursery; whether the mention of Survey No. 265/1 in the Section 9 notice invalidates the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi:
The validity of the Section 4(1) notification is not affected by subsequent delay in issuing the declaration or by the appellants post-notification purchase, as the land remains subject to the States acquisition plan; exemptions to other parties do not attract equal entitlement; and the correct mention of the main survey number suffices to uphold the notice.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
(A) The Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, read alongside the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governs the acquisition of land for public purposes, with Section 4(1) empowering the state to publish a preliminary notification acquiring specified parcels, Section 6 requiring a subsequent declaration after finalizing improvement schemes, and Section 9 formalizing the notice of acquisition to the affected party. In this matter, the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was published in 1963 for the planned development of Jaipur city, specifically acquiring lands including Survey No. 265 and its subdivisions, and a declaration under Section 6 was issued in 1991 following the improvement schemes approval. The appellant, who acquired a portion of the land after the 1963 notification and constructed a residential building, received a notice under Section 9 referencing Survey No. 265/1, and subsequent applications for exemption and challenges to the validity of the acquisition were rejected.
(B) Key legal principles include that a purchaser of property after a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) acquires the land subject to the States right of acquisition and cannot claim title to defeat the acquisition; inordinate delay in issuing a declaration under Section 6 does not invalidate the initial notification if the delay is subsequently rectified; the mention of a survey number or its subdivision in the Section 9 notice does not vitiate the validity of the Section 4(1) notification if the main survey number is correctly mentioned; and discrimination claims under Article 14 cannot be sustained where exemptions granted to other parties do not automatically extend to others based on invidious distinction.
Facts of the case:
The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1963 for land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages. The declaration under Section 6 was published in 1991 after an improvement scheme. The appellant purchased 453 sq. yards (3 biswas) in 1970 and constructed a residential house. A notice under Section 9 issued in 1971 referenced Survey No. 265/1. The appellant sought exemption in 1991 unsuccessfully and challenged the acquisition in a writ petition, which was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substance in the contention of inordinate delay, as the appellants purchase post-notification bound him to the acquisition. The exemption granted to Anand Nursery did not create invidious discrimination affecting the appellants claim. The reference to Survey No. 265/1 did not invalidate the notification, as the main survey number was correctly mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification.
Issues:
Whether the delay between the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration vitiates the acquisition; whether the appellant is entitled to exemption similar to Anand Nursery; whether the mention of Survey No. 265/1 in the Section 9 notice invalidates the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi:
The validity of the Section 4(1) notification is not affected by subsequent delay in issuing the declaration or by the appellants post-notification purchase, as the land remains subject to the States acquisition plan; exemptions to other parties do not attract equal entitlement; and the correct mention of the main survey number suffices to uphold the notice.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, ARVIND SHARMA, KRISHAN MAHAJAN, MANOJ MISHRA, P.H.Parekh
JUDGMENT :- The preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, `the Act) was published in the Gazette on October 17, 1963 acquiring 99 Biswas & 17 Bighas of land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages for `planned development of Jaipur city. It comprises of Survey No. 265 admeasuring 12 bighas of the land in Rampura Roopa village. The declaration under Section 6 was published on January 7, 1991 after the improvement scheme had been finalised under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1969. In the meanwhile, the appellant had purchased 453 sq. yards, viz., 3 biswas of the land under a registered sale deed Dated 15th July, 1970. Thereafter, the notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act on April 12, 1971. The appellant filed an application for exemption on July 15, 1991 which was turned down. He also filed an objection to the notice under Section 9 regarding Survey No. 265/1. Since exemption was rejected on May 17, 1972 he filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned single Judge by his order Dated November 15, 1979 dismissed the writ petition and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on July 16, 1980, in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No.194 of 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave.
2. Sri P. H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised three-fold contention, viz., that there is an unexplained inordinate delay between publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 vitiating the validity of the notification under Section 4(1). So it needs to the quashed on that premise. He further contended that Anand Nursery which is adjacent to the appellants site was given exemption from the acquisition whereas the appellants site used for residential purpose has not been exempted. The appellant had constructed the house and is living therein and thus this invidious discrimination offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Lastly, he contended that survey number initially mentioned was `265 whereas in the notice under Section 9 it was mentioned as `265/1 and that, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are invalid in law as it was not covered by 4(1) notification.
3. We do not find any substance in any of these contentions. It is seen that long after the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Gazette, the appellant had purchased the property and constructed the house thereon. Therefore, as against the State his purchase was not lawful and it could not be used against the State to clothe it with a colour of title as against the State. It is an encumbrance against the State and when the acquisition was finalised and the possession is taken, the State under Section 16 is entitled to have the possession with absolute title free from all encumbrances. The appellant cannot get any title much less valid title to the property.
4. Sri Parekh contended that the unexplained delay in issuing declaration under Section 6 is fatal to the acquisition. That contention is no longer available to the appellant. He himself had purchased the property in 1970 long after the acquisition and therefore, he cannot take the ground of unexplained delay between the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. It is seen that after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) the improvement scheme was prepared and sent to the Government for finalisation thereof. It has taken, as usual, certain time for approval and after the declaration under Section 6 was duly published in the Gazette. Under these circumstances, we do not find any inordinate delay in the issuance of declaration under Section 6 and the valid notification under Section 4 does not become invalid on that account due to inaction on the part of the subordinates.
5. It is true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand Nursery had the benefit of the exemption. The wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the authorities will not clothe others to get the same benefit nor can Article 14 be pressed into service on the ground of invidious discrimination. The wrong mention of Survey number in notice under Section 9 cannot caste cloud on valid notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is enough that main survey number is mentioned in the notification under Section 4 and the details thereof would be supplemented at the appropriate stage. Mention of the sub-division of the main surevey number does not render the notification under Section 4 (1) does not get vitiated.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.