Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India addressed an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The dispute involved land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages acquired for the planned development of Jaipur city. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on October 17, 1963, covering 99 Biswas and 17 Bighas of land, including Survey No. 265 admeasuring 12 bighas in Rampura Roopa village. The declaration under Section 6 was published on January 7, 1991, after the improvement scheme was finalised under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1969. The appellant purchased 453 square yards (approximately 3 biswas) of the acquired land under a registered sale deed dated July 15, 1970, after the preliminary notification. A notice under Section 9 was issued on April 12, 1971. The appellant filed an application for exemption, which was rejected, and he filed objections to the notice regarding Survey No. 265/1. The exemption was rejected on May 17, 1972, and the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on November 15, 1979, and the Division Bench confirmed the dismissal on July 16, 1980 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 194 of 1980. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. Three contentions were raised: unexplained inordinate delay between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration; discriminatory treatment because Anand Nursery was exempted but the appellant's residential plot was not; and discrepancy in survey number from 265 to 265/1 in the Section 9 notice. The appellant argued that the delay vitiated the acquisition, that the discrimination violated Article 14, and that the survey number discrepancy rendered the acquisition invalid. The Court rejected all contentions. It held that because the appellant purchased the property after the Section 4(1) notification, his purchase was not lawful as against the State and could not be used to clothe himself with title. The State was entitled under Section 16 to possession free from all encumbrances. The delay ground was not available to a post-notification purchaser, and the delay was explained by the time taken to prepare and finalise the improvement scheme. The wrong exemption given to Anand Nursery did not entitle the appellant to claim similar benefit under Article 14. The survey number discrepancy was immaterial because the main survey number was correctly mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification, and sub-division details could be supplemented later. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Preliminary Notification and Declaration - Delay between Section 4(1) and Section 6 - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, Sections 4(1) and 6 - The appellant challenged the acquisition on ground of unexplained inordinate delay between notification under Section 4(1) published on 1963-10-17 and declaration under Section 6 published on 1991-01-07. The Court held that the appellant purchased the property after the preliminary notification and could not raise the delay ground; moreover, the delay was explained by the time taken to prepare and finalise the improvement scheme under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1969. Held that no inordinate delay existed and the valid notification under Section 4(1) did not become invalid due to inaction of subordinates. B) Land Acquisition - Title of Post-Notification Purchaser - Encumbrance and State's Right - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, Sections 4(1) and 16 - The appellant purchased land in 1970 after publication of Section 4(1) notification and constructed a house. The Court held that as against the State, such purchase was not lawful and could not be used to clothe title; the State under Section 16 was entitled to possession with absolute title free from all encumbrances. The appellant could not get any valid title to the property. C) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Wrong Exemption to Another - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The appellant contended that adjacent Anand Nursery was exempted while his residential plot was not, amounting to invidious discrimination. The Court held that wrong exemption or wrong action by authorities cannot cloth others to get the same benefit; Article 14 cannot be pressed into service on the ground of invidious discrimination. D) Land Acquisition - Notice and Survey Number - Discrepancy in Sub-Division - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, Sections 4(1) and 9 - The appellant argued that survey number initially mentioned as 265 was later shown as 265/1 in the Section 9 notice, making acquisition invalid. The Court held that the wrong mention of survey number in the notice under Section 9 cannot cast cloud on valid notification under Section 4(1); mention of main survey number is sufficient and details may be supplemented later; sub-division does not vitiate the notification.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land acquisition proceedings were vitiated by unexplained delay between publication of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953; whether denial of exemption to the appellant while granting exemption to adjacent land amounts to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution; whether mention of Survey No. 265/1 instead of Survey No. 265 in the notice under Section 9 invalidates the acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed without any order as to costs.
Law Points
- Post-notification purchase under Section 4(1) of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act
- 1953 does not confer valid title against State
- State entitled to possession free from encumbrances under Section 16
- delay in Section 6 declaration not fatal if improvement scheme finalisation caused time
- wrong exemption to one party cannot be claimed by others under Article 14
- discrepancy in survey number sub-division in Section 9 notice does not vitiate valid Section 4(1) notification.
