Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ranjeet Singh Meena And Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 13 August, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3534/2010 Ranjeet Singh Meena & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: August 13, 2012 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. R.P. Garg, for the petitioners Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. O.P. Pareek, for the respondents BY THE COURT(Per Jain J.)
Reportable Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition, with the prayer, that Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (written as Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act, 1894 in the prayer clause of the writ petition) be declared as ultravires to the Constitution and further to regularise the land bearing Khasra Nos. 63, 65, 67, 179, 185, 68, 168, 169, 170 & 173 situated in Village Chainpura, Tehsil, Sanganer, District, Jaipur. The petitioners have also prayed that an appropriate writ be issued to respondents to decide the application filed by petitioners for regularisation of aforesaid land under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act.
3. The petitioners, in the writ petition, have averred that disputed land is in their Khatedari and possession. On 21st August, 1969 a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition 'Act, 1953' (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953) was issued for acquisition of land. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 was also issued on 20th February, 1973 and without considering the objections of Khatedars, award was passed on 17.5.1975, which was challenged by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 942/1974 (Neta vs. State & Ors.) before this Court, which was decided on 8th May, 1975. It was further averred that in the order passed in writ petition No.942/1974, it was admitted that some of the land acquired, which is in dispute is reserved for Aerodrome. The notification was issued for acquisition of land by Urban Improvement Trust, which was challenged by Govinda & others by filing writ petition No.743/1975, which was decided on 19th March, 1978. The above land was reserved for extension of Aerodrome, but remained in the cultivatory possession of petitioners. The petitioners have not received any compensation in pursuance of award passed in the case. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 is ultravires as no time limit is provided for taking possession, as in the present case even awards have been passed in 1975 and 1976, but possession has not been taken so far. There is a provision of limitation of one year for issuing notification under Section 6 after notification under Section 4 and if the same is not issued then proceedings shall lapse and if award is not passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 then all land acquisition proceedings will lapse under Section 11-A of the Act of 1894, whereas no such limitation or time limit is prescribed under Section 16. Therefore, it is ultavires to the constitutional provisions. The Jaipur Development Authority is now bent upon to dispossess the petitioners and wants to convert the Said land for commercial purpose; whereas acquisition was made for extension of Aerodrome. The petitioners further pleaded that petitioners moved an application to the respondents in August, 2005 for regularisation of land in question under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 and the application is still pending and no decision has been taken on the application.
4. The respondent No.2 Jaipur Development Authority filed its reply to writ petition. The old Khasra numbers and new Khasra numbers in Jamabandi 2051 to 2054 were given in Para 2 of the reply. It was averred in the reply that new Khasra number is recorded in the Khatedari of Urban Improvement Trust. The copy of Jamabandi showing the name of UIT in Khatedari of land was enclosed. It was submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was published on 21.8.1969 for acquisition of land in dispute for the purpose of Bajaj Nagar to Sanganer Aerodrome. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 was issued on 22nd April, 1973. The award was passed and compensation was determined in respect of land in dispute and the same was deposited in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 28th June, 1999. It was denied that Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is ultravires to the constitutional provisions. It was also submitted that regularisation of land in dispute cannot be done under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 as acquisition of the land has already been made and award has been passed and land has been entered in the Khatedari of Urban Improvement Trust. Therefore, it was contended that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same be dismissed.
5. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit in support of writ petition stating that the land in dispute is in the Khatedari and possession of the petitioners. The respondents filed a reply to the additional affidavit, wherein it was stated that land in question is in Khatedari of Urban Improvement Trust.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1969, the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 was issued on 21.8.1969, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 was issued on 22.4.1973 and award was also passed in 1975, but possession of land in dispute was never taken by the respondents. Since the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute and they moved an application for regularisation of land under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 but their application has not been decided so far. He also submitted that there is a provision under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for de-acquiring the land. Since possession of land has not been taken so far and petitioners are in possession, therefore, the land should have been de-acquired and regularised in the name of petitioners under Section 90-B of the Act.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land was acquired for extension of Aerodrome, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated way back in the year 1969, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in 1969, the notification under Section 6 was issued in the year 1973, the award was passed in 1975 and land stood entered in the Khatedari of Urban Improvement Trust. The revenue record has been placed on record to show that land has been entered in the name of respondents. Therefore, it is wrong to say that petitioners are owners of land in dispute. It was also submitted that after passing of the award, the amount of compensation has already been deposited in the concerned court. It is also submitted that since land has been acquired and it has been entered in the name of respondents, therefore, no question arises for considering the application of the petitioners under Section 90-B of the Act.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is not in dispute between the parties that acquisition proceedings for acquiring the disputed land were initiated way back in the year 1969. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21st August, 1969, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22nd April, 1973 and award was passed in the year 1975. As per averments made in the reply to writ petition, the amount of compensation has already been deposited in the concerned court on 28th June, 1999. From revenue record i.e. Jamabandi, it appears that land has already been entered in the Khatedari of respondent i.e. Urban Improvement Trust, as it then was. A copy of Jamabandi is available on record. Comparative table showing the old and new Khasra numbers of land in dispute is also available on record. Copies of notifications under Sections 4 & 6 are also available on record. The documentary evidence to show that amount of compensation has been deposited is available on record including the Cheque number with date and amount. The land was acquired for extension of Aerodrome. Since the land has already been acquired and award has been passed under Section 11 of the Act, the land has been entered in the name of UIT, in these circumstances, no question arises for considering the application of the petitioners for regularisation of land under Section 90-B of the Act and no direction can be issued in favour of petitioners in this regard, directing the respondents to consider the application under Section 90-B of the Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Act of 1894, Section 16 of the Act reads as under:-
16. Power to take possession.- When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.
The challenge has been made on the ground that there is no time limit prescribed under Section 16 to take possession of the land after award is passed. Therefore, it gives unbridled and uncontrolled power to the respondents to take possession. Therefore, it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. Before considering this submission on merits, it is relevant to mention that acquisition proceedings in present case commenced in the year 1969, whereas the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Act, has been challenged in the year 2010 i.e. after 41 years and no reason at all, what to talk about reasonable explanation, has been given for this inordinate delay of 41 years, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. It is also relevant to mention that as per averments made in the writ petition itself, the writ petitions in the same acquisition proceedings were filed earlier also in the year 1974, 1975 and at that time also, the Section 16 of the Act was in existence, then why it was not challenged at the earliest opportunity and as such no fresh writ petition can be permitted to be filed on the pretext that constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Act is under challenge in this writ petition.
12. We have also considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on merits, in respect of constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Act. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, in Chadami Lal Vs. General Manager, Western Railway, reported in AIR 1962 Allahabad Page 159 (at page 162), while considering the provisions of 'Easement Act' also considered the validity of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Para 11, and held, that there is no question of Section being discriminatory because it does not create any discrimination between any two persons. The section only declares that on acquisition, the land will stand free from all encumbrances whoever be the person whose land is acquired, whoever be the person who has any encumbrances over the land, the provision applies equally to all. The compensation that is awarded for the land at the time of its acquisition includes compensation for encumbrances also. Section 16 is, therefore, not invalid.
13. There is a complete procedure given in the Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land and there is a time limit prescribed under Section 6 & 11 of the Act for issuing a declaration and passing an award, which is necessary. Soon after passing of the award, the land can be taken in possession at any time. The amount in pursuance of the award is liable to be deposited and the persons concerned, are entitled to receive the amount of award. The notifications under sections 4 & 6 can be challenged on limited grounds, but when there is no challenge to the notifications under sections 4 & 6, the award is passed under Section 11 of the Act, which cannot be challenged by way of writ petition in the High Court as remedy to challenge the award is available under Section 18 of the Act on limited grounds and/or limited relief. After passing of award and deposit of amount of compensation in pursuance of award, nothing remains to be done on the part of the respondents, except that, they become entitle to take possession of the acquired land at any time. At this juncture, petitioners have no right to challenge the validity of Section 16 of the Act of 1894.
14. Sections 6 to 17 of the Act lay down a clearly formulated and logical procedure to be followed in proceedings for acquisition. If all these provisions are read together, it will be clear that they form a complete well regulated code providing for various contingencies and eventualities that are bound to occur in such matters and it is not possible to accept the plea that Section 16 imposes unreasonable restrictions on the owners.
15. Since nothing is to be done by the land acquiring authority after deposit of amount of compensation in pursuance of award, they are at liberty to take possession of the acquired land at any time. In these circumstances, we do not find any arbitrariness or discrimination or unconstitutionality in the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1894. In our view, Section 16 of the Act of 1894 is intravires and does not violate any provisions of the Constitution.
16. So far as submission, to issue direction to consider the case of petitioners for regularisation of land is concerned, the said direction cannot be issued for the simple reason that land in dispute stood acquired and it has been entered in the Khatedari of U.I.T. The petitioners are no more owners or Khatedars of the disputed land. We may also add that now Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is no more in existence, as it has already been deleted vide Notification dated 2.5.2012. Therefore, we do not find any force in this submission of petitioners also.
17. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ.
BKS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
B.K. SHRIVASTAVA PRIVATE SECRETAR