Case Note & Summary
This writ petition challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Rajasthan and RIICO for expansion of an industrial area in Village Roopwas, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk. The original petitioner, Sohan Lal, had purchased a 1,000 square yard plot in Khasra No. 90 via registered sale deed dated 16.02.1993, after the Tehsildar converted the agricultural land to Abadi. He raised a residential house and shops measuring about 2,000 square feet and resided and carried on business there. On 15.09.1994, the respondents issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking to acquire 371.05 Bighas of land for the expansion of the industrial area by RIICO. The notification wrongly recorded the land as Barani and showed the erstwhile khatedar Mangilal as the owner, omitting the petitioner's name despite the registered sale deed. The petitioner alleged that the notification was not published in newspapers or by public notice in the locality, denying him knowledge of the acquisition. A simultaneous notification under Section 17(2) read with Section 4(1) was issued the same day, granting only 15 days for objections instead of the mandatory 30 days. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 24.08.1995 and published in the official gazette on 31.08.1995, again without local publication. The petitioner claimed discrimination because similarly situated landholders, such as Jagdish Prasad Sharma of Khasra No. 114/1 and lands in Khasra Nos. 93 and 95, were excluded from acquisition. During pendency, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 19.08.1996, and the petitioner amended the petition to argue that under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition lapsed because compensation was not paid and the award was more than five years old when the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014. The respondents contended that mutation had not been opened, notice was sent to the erstwhile khatedar, and information about the sale reached them only on 30.09.1995. They claimed the Section 4 notification was published in two newspapers, Dainik Lahron Ki Barkaha (Ajmer Edition) and Dainik Khamos (Tonk Edition), and urgency was invoked due to a Supreme Court judgment directing industries to shift out of Delhi. The petitioner rebutted that these newspapers were unknown and had no circulation in Niwai, supported by an affidavit from a newspaper merchant, and noted that the award itself referred to a different newspaper, Dainik Taj Bharti. Procedurally, the writ petition was initially dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 16.08.1999 after noting the award. The Division Bench allowed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 89/2000 on 29.07.2008 and remanded the matter. On 20.11.2008, the writ petition was admitted and the interim status quo order granted on 17.09.1996 was continued. Additional affidavits were filed; on 25.09.2009, the Regional Manager of RIICO affirmed that possession of 348 Bighas 8 Biswas out of 371 Bighas 5 Biswas was taken on 19.08.1996 and compensation for 8 Biswas and construction was assessed at Rs. 3,30,959. The final decision of the court was not included in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 complied with mandatory publication and notice requirements; whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; whether invocation of Section 17(2) and reduction of objection period to 15 days was valid; whether discriminatory exclusion of similarly situated lands vitiated acquisition
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with Section 4 publication and individual notice under Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 17(2) urgency cannot curtail 30-day objection period to 15 days
- Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 provides lapse of acquisition if compensation not paid and award older than five years
- Discriminatory exclusion of similarly situated land violates constitutional equality
- Non-publication in newspapers having circulation in locality invalidates acquisition
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (08) 54
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1996 (CNR: RJHC020046181996; URN: CW / 3317U / 1996)
Anil Mehta, Saurav Mehta, Ranvijay Singh, Abhishek Sharma, Vishal Kumar, Manoj Sharma, S.N. Kumawat, Ishan Kumawat, Naval Kishore Saini
Sohan Lal (since deceased) through legal heirs: Santosh Devi, Rambhrosh Sharma, Ganesh Sharma, Asha Sharma, Poonam Sharma, Krishna Sharma
State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Jaipur; Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk; Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO), Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur through Managing Director
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for expansion of industrial area by RIICO, alleging non-compliance with mandatory notice and publication requirements and discrimination.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of notification dated 15.09.1994 under Section 4 and declaration dated 24.08.1995 under Section 6; declaration that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of the Act of 2013; interim status quo.
Filing Reason
Petitioner purchased plot vide registered sale deed dated 16.02.1993 and constructed residential house and shops; acquisition notification omitted his name, incorrectly recorded land nature, no proper publication or individual notice; no opportunity to object; discrimination.
Previous Decisions
Initially writ petition dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 16.08.1999; D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 89/2000 allowed on 29.07.2008 and remanded; on 20.11.2008 writ petition admitted and status quo earlier granted on 17.09.1996 continued; award passed 19.08.1996; possession taken on 19.08.1996 for 348 Bighas 8 Biswas out of 371 Bighas 5 Biswas; compensation assessed Rs. 3,30,959 for 8 Biswas and construction.
Issues
Whether notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued in compliance with mandatory publication and individual notice requirements
Whether invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17(2) and reduction of objection period to 15 days vitiated acquisition
Whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Whether exclusion of similarly situated lands of other khatedars constituted discrimination violative of constitutional equality
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 4 publication; no individual notice despite registered sale deed; Section 17(2) notified on same day and 15 days objection period instead of 30; newspaper unknown/no circulation; discrimination; lapse under Section 24 due to non-payment of compensation.
Respondents argued mutation not opened; individual notice to erstwhile khatedar; information about sale came only on 30.09.1995; notification published in two newspapers Dainik Lahron Ki Barkaha and Dainik Khamos; urgency due to Supreme Court judgment shifting industries from Delhi; proceedings lawful.
Judgment Excerpts
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... as well as declaration dated 24.08.1995 issued under Section 6 thereof...
the notification was published in two daily newspapers, namely, Dainik Lahron Ki Barkaha, Ajmer Edition and Dainik Khamos, Tonk Edition.
award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19.08.1996.
Procedural History
Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 15.09.1994; simultaneous notification under Section 17(2) issued same day; declaration under Section 6 issued on 24.08.1995 and published on 31.08.1995; award passed on 19.08.1996; interim status quo granted on 17.09.1996; writ petition dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 16.08.1999; D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 89/2000 allowed on 29.07.2008 and matter remanded; writ petition admitted on 20.11.2008 with status quo continued; additional affidavits filed, including Regional Manager's affidavit on 25.09.2009; arguments concluded and judgment reserved on 03.08.2026; judgment pronounced on 12.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 6, Section 17(2)
- Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24
