The case Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi & Ors. revolves around the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (RUI Act). The Supreme Court examined whether procedural safeguards under Section 52(1) and Section 52(2) of the RUI Act were met and addressed issues of delay, compensation, and the rights of the landowners.

1. Factual Background

• Acquisition proceedings initiated in 1976 for lands in Nangli Kota and Moongaska.
• Landowners challenged procedural lapses, including compensation delays and lack of proper notification.

2. Procedural Deviations

• Notices under Section 52(2) of RUI Act were not served individually, nor pasted conspicuously, violating statutory safeguards.
• Compensation was delayed by decades, and the award was not finalized within stipulated timeframes.

3. Legal Contentions

• Appellant's Argument: Acquisition was valid as the notification was published and respondents participated, implying constructive notice.
• Respondents' Argument: Acquisition proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under RUI Act.

4. High Court Findings

• Acquisition notifications under Section 52(1) were invalid due to improper service of notice.
• Delay in compensation payment breached mandatory provisions under Section 60A of RUI Act (amended 1987).

5. Supreme Court Analysis

• Condoned delay in filing petitions citing procedural irregularities affecting fundamental property rights.
• Held that non-compliance with notice provisions invalidated acquisition for Moongaska but upheld acquisition for Nangli Kota, as implied notice sufficed.

6. Conclusion

• Acquisition quashed for Moongaska due to prejudiced landowners.
• Emphasized strict adherence to procedural laws to uphold constitutional rights under Article 300A.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959

   • Section 52(1): Notification for land acquisition.
   • Section 52(2): Requirement of notice to landowners.
   • Section 60A: Compensation payment timeline and provisions (as amended in 1987).

2. Land Acquisition Act, 1894

   • Applicability debated for compensation determination and procedural compliance.

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

   • Section 114(e): Presumption of official acts being properly done, contested by the respondents.

4. Indian Constitution

   • Article 300A: Right to property as a constitutional right.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Procedural compliance in land acquisition ensures fairness and safeguards constitutional rights under Article 300A.
• Delayed compensation and lack of proper notice render acquisition invalid if landowners are prejudiced.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition, Property Law, Constitutional Law.

Procedural Compliance, Right to Property, Public Interest, Land Compensation, Supreme Court Judgment.