Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Singh vs State & Anr on 5 October, 2016
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 11487 of 2015
Petitioner:
Prem Singh S/o Shri Parbat Singh by caste Rajput
aged about 46 years R/o Village Narwa Khichiyan
Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through secretary, Urban
Development Department of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(2) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 12272 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Mahendra Singh S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh,
aged about 62 years,
2. Rajendra Singh S/o Late Shri Madho singh
aged about 46 years,
3. Vikram Singh S/o late Shri Madho Singh aged
about 42 years,
4. Bharat Singh S/o Late Singh Madho Singh
aged about 48 years,
5. Prabhu Singh S/o late Shri Pratap Singh, aged
about 57 years,
6. Smt. Ram Kanwar W/o Late Moti Singh, aged
90 years,
7. Kushal Singh S/o Late Moti Singh, aged 59
2
years,
8. Kushal Singh S/o Late Moti Singh, aged 59
years,
9. Indra Singh S/o Late Moti Singh, aged 56
years,
All by caste Rajput, R/o Revenue Village
Manaklao Tehsil and District Jodhpur
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Govt.
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority through its
Commissioner, Jodhpur, Address :- opposite
Railway Hospital, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
3. Deputy Commissioner (North) cum Land
Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur Development
Authority, Address :- Opposite Railway
Hospital Ratanada, Jodhpur.
(3) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14617 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Dhokal Ram S/o Shri Rahing Ram
2. Lakha Ram S/o Shri Rahing Ram
3. Rekha Ram S/o Shri Rahing Ram
4. Bhanwari Devi D/o Shri Rahing Ram
5. Gumni Devi W/o Shri Rahing Ram
6. Biram Ram S/o Shri Seema Ram
All are by caste Jat R/o Village Jakhado Ki
Dhani Tehsil & district Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
3
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(4) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14619 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Puna Ram S/o Surja Ram
2. Dhagala Ram /o Surja Ram
3. Gordhan Ram S/o Surja Ram
All are by caste Jat R/o village Kadwad Tehsil
& District Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents.
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Johdpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(5) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14620 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Pepa Ram S/o Jetha Ram
3. Puna Ram S/o Jetha Ram
4. Bhanwara Ram S/o Jetha Ram
5. Ganga Devi w/o Jetha Ram
All are by caste Patel R/o Village Kadwad
Tehsil & District
Versus
4
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(6) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14621 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Bhera Ram Bheel s/o Shri Jassa Ram
2. Mangla Ram Bheel s/o Shri Jassa Ram
3. Surja Ram Bheel s/o Shri Jassa Ram
All are by caste Bheel r/o village Basni Lachha
tehsil & district Jodhpur.
VERSUS
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(7) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14622 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Gulki Devi w/o Rana Ram
2. Ashok s/o Rana Ram (minor through his
natural guardian mother Gulki Devi petitioner
no.1)
3. Dhopu Devi w/o Harji Ram
4. Bhanwara Ram s/o Harji Ram
5. Kalu Ram s/o Harji Ram
5
6. Pira Ram s/o Harji Ram
7. Hamira Ram s/o Harji Ram
All are by caste Jat r/o village Kadwad tehsil &
district Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(8) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14664 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Bhikha Ram aged
about 45 years.
2. Mala Ram S/o Late Shri Bhikha Ram aged
about 40 years.
3. Rukma Devi W/o Late Shri Bhikha Ram aged
about 65 years.
4. Dakhu Devi D/o Late Shri Bhikha Ram aged
about 35 years.
5. Gumna Ram S/o Shri Thana Ram, aged about
53 years.
6. Hari Ram S/o Shri Thana Ram, aged about 45
years.
7. Ganwari W/o Shri Thana Ram, aged about 75
years.
8. Luni D/o Shri Thana Ram, aged about 60
years.
6
9. Sua D/o Shri Thana Ram, aged about 55
years.
10. Ranaram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about 40
years.
11. Virda Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about
38 years.
12. Padma Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about
25 years.
13. Tija Devi D/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about 36
years.
14. Rukma Devi D/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about
32 years.
15. Raju Devi D/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about
30 years.
16. Chimu Devi W/o Shri Likhma Ram, aged about
60 years.
All by caste Jat, R/o Gram Narwa Khichiyan,
Tehsil and District Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority through its
Commissioner, Jodhpur, Address :- opposite
Railway Hospital, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
3. Deputy Commissioner (North) cum Land
Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur Development
Authority, Address:- Opposite Railway
Hospital, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
(9) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 82 of 2016
Petitioners:
7
1. Mana Ram s/o Shri Ram
2. Prabhu Ram s/o Shri Ram
All are by caste Jat r/o village Anganwara
Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(10) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 134 of 2016
Petitioner:
Malam Singh s/o Shri Tej Singh by caste Rajput r/o
village Kadwad tehsil & District Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(11) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14093 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Gokal Ram s/o Shri Chuna Ram
2. Pratap Ram s/o Shri Chuna Ram
3. Budha Ram s/o Shri Chuna Ram
4. Prema Ram s/o Shri Chuna Ram
All are by caste Jat r/o village Kadwad tehsil &
8
District Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(12) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14096 of 2015
Petitioners:
LR's of Lalaram
1. Narsa Ram s/o Lala Ram
2. Baldev Ram s/o Lala Ram
3. Kheta Ram s/o Lala Ram
4. Khema Ram s/o Mota Ram
5. Pani Devi w/o Mota Ram
6. Amri Devi w/o Khuma Ram
7. Mahipal s/o Khuma Ram
All are by caste Jat r/o village Kadwad tehsil
& district Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(13) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14113 of 2015
Petitioners:
9
1. Shri Ram s/o Shri Fusa Ram
2. Hira Ram s/o Shri Fusa Ram
3. Tila Ram s/o Shri Fusa Ram
All are by caste Patel r/o village Kadwad tehsil
& district Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(14) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14118 of 2015
Petitioners:
LR's of Kishna Ram s/o Jayroop Ram Patel
1. Jaga Ram s/o Kishna Ram
2. Puna Ram s/o Kishna Ram
3. Ganga Devi w/o Kishna Ram
All are by caste Patel r/o village Kadwad tehsil
& district jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(15) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14202 of 2015
Petitioners:
10
1. Kishore Singh s/o Shri Ranidan Singh
2. Ummed Singh s/o Shri Ranidan Singh
3. Ram Singh s/o Shri Bhanwar Singh
4. Surendra Singh s/o Shri Bhanwar Singh
by caste Purohit r/o Kadwad tehsil & district
Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(16) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14430 of 2015
Petitioners:
1. Ganga Ram s/o Raju Ram
2. Mangna Ram s/o Hanuta Ram
3. Pepa Ram s/o Hanuta Ram
4. Luna Ram s/o Hanuta Ram
All are by caste Jat r/o village Kadwad tehsil &
district Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
(17) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 14618 of 2015
11
Petitioners:
1. Bhanwar Singh s/o Shri Dhokal Singh
2. Hari Singh s/o Shri Dhokal Singh
3. Hukam Singh s/o Shri Dhokal Singh
4. Chhatar Kanwar w/o Shri Narayan Singh
by caste purohit r/o village Kadwad tehsil &
district Jodhpur.
Versus
Respondents:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban
Development Department of Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, through Land
Acquisition Officer (Deputy Commissioner,
North), JDA, Jodhpur.
Date of Order : 5th October 2016
HON'BLE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI,J.
MR MOTI SINGH ] for the Petitioners
MR G.S.RATHORE ]
MR R.S.RATHORE ]
MR D. KAWADIA ]
MR DS RAJVI, for the Respondents
ORDER
-----
Since common question of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, the same are decided together by this common order.
The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by 12 the Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur (for short 'the JDA' hereinafter) for acquiring agricultural lands of village Jakharo-ki-Dhani, Narwa Khichiyan, Manaklav, Daisar, Basni Lachha, Basni Karwar and Karwar for the purpose of construction of Bypass/Ring Road for connecting Jodhpur-Jaisalmer Highway with Nagaur-Jodhpur Highway.
The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the State Government through JDA issued a notification on 18.03.2013 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894' hereinafter) and authorized Land Acquisition Officer, JDA, Jodhpur to take necessary steps under section 4(2) of the Act of 1894. The notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published in the Official Gazette, News Papers and was also affixed in the locality. The concerned persons have raised objections under section 5A of the Act of 1894 and thereafter on the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer, JDA, the State Government issued declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 18.07.2013 with intention to acquire the land of the aforementioned villages mentioned in the declaration. The said declaration was published in 13 the Gazette on 24.07.2013. The declaration was thereafter published in the daily News Papers i.e. Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Pratinidhi on 11.10.2013. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 16.10.2015.
In the writ petitions, the petitioners have contended that after publishing the declaration under section 6 in the daily News Papers on 11.10.2013, it was nowhere published and within two years of such publication, the award has not been passed, therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 18.03.2013 under section 4 of the Act of 1894 has been lapsed by virtue of section 11A of the Act of 1894.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2002] 1 RLW (SC) 91; Mohan & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2007] 3 Supreme 408; and R.Indira Saratchandra vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2011 (1) SCC 344.
In reply to the writ petitions, respondent- JDA came out with a case that the substance of 14 declaration was affixed at the convenient place of the locality by way of public notice on 24.10.2013, therefore, the award dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, JDA Jodhpur is very much within 2 years of the last date of publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be said to be lapsed. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 285; Bihar State Housing Board vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC and Ganesh Ram & 100 Ors. vs. State & Ors., WLC (Raj.) 2011 (2).
In rejoinder, the petitioners have disputed the fact that the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published at the convenient place of the locality on 24.10.2013. In support of the said contention, the petitioners have placed on record the certificates issued by the concerned Gram Panchayats while claiming that the Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats have certified that no declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was affixed at the convenient place of the Gram Panchayats. The 15 petitioners have also placed on record the diary of the server, Firoz Khan while claiming that in his diary, it has nowhere been mentioned that he affixed any declaration under section 6 in the locality on 23.10.2013. The counsel for the petitioners has placed on certain provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Manual and argued that affixation of the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 has not been made as per the provisions of Revenue Courts Manual, 1956 (for short 'the Manual, 1956' hereinafter).
For the adjudication of the controversy involved in these cases, the relevant provisions of the Act of 1894 are reproduced hereunder:
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub- section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land 16 covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2)];
[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:] [Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.
[Explanation 1.- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
17
[Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues].
(2) [Every declaration] shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state] the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the [appropriate Government] may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing."
18
11A. Period within which an award shall be made.-(1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.] Sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act deals with the various modes of the publication, which are thus; (a) publication in the Official Gazette, (b) publication in 2 daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language and (c) public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality.
Section 11A of the Act of 1894 provides that if the award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 19 is not passed within a period of two years from the date of the last publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod vs. State of Maharashtra &, Mohan & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., and R.Indira Saratchandra vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (supra) has held that if the award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 is not passed within two years of the last publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894, the acquisition proceedings will automatically lapse by virtue of section 11A of the Act of 1894.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Housing Board vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) while dealing with the provisions of sections 6 and 11A of the Act of 1894 has held as under:
"7. The crucial words in Section 11-A are "within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration". Section 6(2) deals with the various modes of publication, as enjoined by the legislature and what is envisaged by the Statute is a conjoint publication, by all such methods. Various modes as prescribed in the 20 provision itself are: (a) publication in the Official Gazette, (b) publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language and (c) public notice of substance of such declaration at convenient places in the locality. There is no option left with any one to give up or waive any one or other of the modes and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 therefore, necessarily makes it abundantly clear that the last of the dates of the publication and giving of such public notice shall "hereinafter"
be referred to as the date of publication of the declaration. Therefore, the expression "date of
publication of declaration" appearing in Section 11A, a stage subsequent to Section 6, answering the stipulation 'hereinafter' has to be the last of the dates out of the three modes of publication ordained by the statute. In substance the triumvirate modes are cumulative and inseparable in the sense that unless all the three modes are resorted to and completed, there is no scope for the limitation period of two years beginning to run or for the penal consequences envisaged ensuing therefrom.
8. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Makrand Sinngh (1995 (2) SCC 497) while considering the various provisions (in which only the period of 21 limitation was changed by amending Act 68 of 1984) it was noted that there are three modes of publication and the three steps are as indicated supra.
9. If one takes note of the parenthesis appearing in sub- section (2) of Section 6, it is clear that reference to the subsequent provisions of the Act to the date of publication of declaration has to be determined as the last of the dates of the publication and the giving of public notice. As the date of publication by local publication was the last at that point of time i.e. 15-3-1991 the award on 25-3-1992 was not beyond the prescribed period of limitation."
Now the question before the Court is whether the acquisition proceedings in relation to the agricultural lands of the villages mentioned in the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 have been lapsed by virtue of section 11A of the Act of 1894 as the final award under section 11 has not been passed within the period of two years from the date of last publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894..
In the present case, the petitioners are claiming that after publication of the declaration under section 6 in two daily newspapers on 22 11.10.2013, no declaration was published at convenient places of locality and as such the last date of publication in the present case was 11.10.2013 and the award has to be passed on or before 10.10.2015, whereas the award in the present case was passed on 16.10.2015 i.e. after two years of last publication of declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are lapsed by virtue of section 11A of the Act of 1894.
The respondent-JDA has produced a copy of letter dated 01.11.2013 sent by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to the Land Acquisition Officer, JDA, whereby he forwarded the affixation report of the declaration under section 6 on the convenient places of the villages concerned. Along with the said letter dated 01.11.2013, he also forwarded Ex.A giving description regarding the affixation of the declaration under section 6. The said affixation report declares that the declaration under section 6 was affixed at the Offices of District Collector, Jodhpur, SDO Jodhpur, JDA, Tehsil Jodhpur, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, concerned Gram Panchayats, concerned, Patwar Circles and 23 convenient places of the villages, lands of which are under acquisition.
The petitioners have placed reliance on certificates issued by the Gram Panchayats - Narwa and Karwar, wherein it is certified that report of affixation of declaration under section 6 on 24.10.2013 is not available in the Panchayat record and the said declaration is also not affixed on the notice board or wall of the Gram Panchayats. Reliance has also been placed on information supplied by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Mandore and certain other documents such as copy of daily diary of server of Tehsil Jodhpur etc. It is to be noticed that the said certificates were issued by the above mentioned Gram Panchayats on 17.03.2016 and 30.03.2016 respectively. It can be assumed that if a notice was affixed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat in October, 2013, it is not always possible that the same remain affixed on the said notice board even after passing of two and a half years. Learned counsels for the petitioners have not pointed out any provision under any law, which requires that a declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 is 24 required to be placed on record of the Gram Panchayats.
In view of the above, the certificates issued by the Gram Panchayats after two and a half years are of no use. Such certificates can be obtained at a later stage.
The other documents on which the petitioners have placed reliance are informations supplied by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Manodre in which he has informed the learned counsel for the petitioners that the declaration under section 6 has not been entered in the Inward Register of the Panchayat Samiti. As observed earlier, the counsels for the petitioners have not pointed out any provision under any law, which requires that a public notice of declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 is required to be entered into the Inward Register of any office, if the same is affixed on the notice board of that office. As such the said information of the Panchayat Samiti, Mandore is also of no help to the petitioners.
The another document on which heavy reliance is placed by the petitioners is the diary of notice server, Firoz Khan. The counsels for the 25 petitioners have claimed that in the said diary, there is no entry regarding the receipt of any notice from the JDA. Reliance is placed on Rule 49 Part-I of Manual, 1956 and on Rule 160 of the Part-II of Manual, 1956.
In the opinion of the Court, the reliance on the provisions of the Manual, 1956 is wholly misplaced. Manual, 1956 is applicable to the proceedings in the Board of Revenue and the courts subordinate to it. Rule 2 of the Manual, 1956 reads as under:
"2. Short title and commencement.-
These rules may be cited as the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, Volume I or Volume II, 1956.
They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Rajasthan Gazette. Rule 1,2 and 3 in Chapter I of Volume I shall apply to all the Courts in Rajasthan. All other rules of Volume I shall apply to proceedings and matters in the Board of Revenue; and all rules of Volume II shall apply to proceedings and matters in all Courts subordinate to the Board of Revnue commenced on or subsequent to that date and, so far as may, also be applied to proceedings and matters pending on that date."
As per Rule 2 of the Manual, 1956, the 26 provisions of Manual applies to the proceedings and matters in the Board of Revenue and the courts subordinate to it. It nowhere prescribes that for the purpose of affixation of public notice of declaration under section 6, through Tehsildar, the procedure laid down under the Manual, 1956 for service, summons etc. are applicable.
The respondent-JDA, Jodhpur along with its reply has annexed a copy of the letter dated 01.11.2013 sent by the Tehsildar to the Land Acquisition Officer, wherein he sent the affixation report in response to the letter of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 10.10.2013.
I have gone through the record of the JDA, Jodhpur. From the said record, it is revealed that on 10.10.2013, Land Acquisition Officer, JDA sent a copy of the public notice of declaration to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur for affixation of the same at the convenient places in the locality and in response to that, the Tehsildar, Jodhpur sent the affixation report vide letter dated 01.11.2013 along with Annexure-A. As per section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is presumption that every official 27 act has been regularly performed. The petitioners have failed to demolish the said presumption.
In view of the above observations, it is held that in the present case, public notice of the substance of declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published at the convenient places of the locality on 24.10.2013. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 16.10.2015 i.e. within two years of the date of last publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894. Hence, land acquisition proceedings challenged by the petitioners by way of these writ petitions could not have been lapsed by virtue of section 11A of the Act of 1894.
Consequently, all these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
m.asif/PS