Rajasthan High Court Examines Challenge to Land Acquisition Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. The case involved alleged procedural irregularities in notification and declaration, non-publication, non-payment of compensation leading to lapse claim under Section 24 of 2013 Act, and discriminatory exclusion of similarly situated land.

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and seeking lapse under Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013

Petitioner sought quashing of notification dated 15.09.1994 under Section 4 and declaration dated 24.08.1995 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and declaration that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of 2013 Act

Petitioner claimed acquisition was conducted without proper notice or publication, land was misdescribed and khatedar wrongly shown, objection period reduced from 30 to 15 days, and compensation was not paid, causing prejudice

Writ petition dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 16.08.1999; D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 89/2000 allowed by Division Bench on 29.07.2008 and remitted for fresh hearing; writ petition admitted on 20.11.2008 with status quo order continued

Whether notification under Section 4 dated 15.09.1994 and declaration under Section 6 dated 24.08.1995 are invalid due to non-compliance with publication and individual notice requirements under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation and award being older than five years before enforcement Whether invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(2) and granting only 15 days for objections violated mandatory provisions Whether exclusion of similarly situated lands violates Article 14 of the Constitution

Petitioner argued no public notice or newspaper publication in locality, only 15 days given for objections instead of 30, notice sent to Mangilal not petitioner, land misdescribed, and so no opportunity of hearing was afforded. Petitioner argued similarly situated Jagdish Prasad Sharma with petrol pump and houses on Khasra No.114/1 was excluded, and later Khasra Nos.93 and 95 left out, but similar benefit not extended to petitioner. Petitioner argued acquisition lapsed under Section 24 of 2013 Act because compensation was not paid and award was passed more than five years before 01.01.2014. Respondents argued notification was published in official gazette on 17.09.1994 and in two daily newspapers Dainik Lahron Ki Barkaha Ajmer Edition and Dainik Khamos Tonk Edition; individual notice was sent to khatedar Mangilal on 08.11.1994; urgency clause was invoked due to Supreme Court order to shift industries out of Delhi; mutation was not opened in petitioner's name so his name was not reflected; land acquisition proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.

Not mentioned in provided judgment text

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner, Sohan Lal has laid challenge to notification dated 15.09.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1894’), as well as declaration dated 24.08.1995 issued under Section 6 thereof and published in official Gazette on 31.08.1995. It is submitted that the respondents have also discriminated in carrying out impugned acquisition proceedings, as one similarly situated person, Jagdish Prasad Sharma, who was khatedar of land bearing Khasra No. 114/1 and having petrol pump and houses over the agricultural land, was benefited by excluding his land from acquisition and similarly, later on, land bearing Khasra No. 93 and 95 was also left from acquisition, yet similar benefit was not extended to the petitioner. ...as the compensation has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, in view of the fact that the award was passed more than five years before the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 01.01.2014, by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Thus, not only nature of the land has wrongly been shown, name of the petitioner was also not mentioned in the notification. Consequently, the petitioner was not aware of the acquisition proceedings. Earlier, writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.1999... the petitioner preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 89/2000, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.07.2008 and the matter was remitted back to the Single Judge for hearing afresh.

Writ petition filed challenging notification dated 15.09.1994 under Section 4 and declaration dated 24.08.1995 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Award passed on 19.08.1996. Writ petition dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 16.08.1999. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 89/2000 allowed by Division Bench on 29.07.2008 and remitted for fresh hearing. On 20.11.2008, writ petition admitted and interim status quo order dated 17.09.1996 continued. Additional affidavits filed; Regional Manager of Respondent No.3 stated possession of 348 bighas 8 biswas taken on 19.08.1996 and compensation for land measuring 8 biswas and construction assessed at Rs.3,30,959/-. Judgment pronounced on 12.08.2026; available text ends without final operative order.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 17(2)
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24