Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2(i) The short facts, as emerging from the record of the case, are that originally Khasra No. 194 having an area of 23 Bighas and 8 Biswas situated at Village Beed Khatipura, Jaipur was entered in the name of Dr. Gopal Singh in the year 1966-69. The said Dr. Gopal Singh sold out the said Khasra number to one Shri Manmohan Lal in the year 1971, in respect of which the mutation No. 16 dated 24.4.1971 was opened in the revenue records. The said Manmohan Lal thereafter sold the said land to the petitioner No.1 Jhutha Ram and the petitioner No.2 Shaitan Singh by executing the sale-deed dated 10.11.75, in respect of which mutation No. 77 dated 3.1.76 was opened in the revenue records. Thus the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 became the Khatedars of the said Khasra No. 194. The copies of Jamabandi reflecting the entries are annexed to the petition as Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. In the year 1976, the ULC Act having come into force in the State of Rajasthan with effect from 9.3.76, the petitioner No.1 Jhutha Ram filled in the form under Section 6 of the ULC Act declaring his holdings including Khasra No. 194. According to the petitioners, the said form was filed by the petitioner No.1 by way of abundant caution and thereafter he was not aware about any proceedings held by the competent authority under the ULC Act. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 thereafter were threatened to dispossess by the officers of the JDA somewhere in the month of September, 1991 and at that time they learnt that the competent authority under the ULC Act had proceeded ex-parte against them and the proceedings were pending for service of notices under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act as on 10.9.91. The petitioner No.1 thereafter filed an appeal being No. 57/91 before the Divisional Commissioner on 18.12.91, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.3.93 (Annex.6) on the ground of being barred by the law of limitation. The petitioner No.1 on the same day i.e. on 29.3.93 filed SBCWP No. 2011/93 before the High Court challenging the very applicability of ULC Act to the said land. The said writ petition alongwith other writ petitions came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 26.4.97(Annex.11).

3(ii) As regards the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, it has been contended that the petitioners had deliberately not produced on record the notification issued under the L.A. Act as their names were not mentioned in the said notification as the Khatedar-tenants of the land in question. The petitioners had also not produced the Schedule to the award dated 27.5.95 as the Schedule indicated that the title of the land was yet to be decided. The respondents have produced the notification under Section 4, the declaration under Section 6 and the complete award dated 27.5.95 as Annex.R/1, R/2 and R/3 respectively. It is also contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the writ petition being No. 3235/95 challenging the acquisition proceedings on 17.7.95, however had suppressed the material facts with regard to the pendency of proceedings under the ULC Act as well as the writ petition having been filed by them challenging proceedings under the ULC Act. According to the respondents, the proceedings under the L.A. Act were continued by the competent authority oblivious of the proceedings under the ULC Act which were being continued by the different authority.

(i) Whether the proceedings under the ULC Act had lapsed?

(ii) Whether the proceedings under the L.A. Act had lapsed?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the reliefs as prayed for?

6. Whether the proceedings under the ULC Act had lapsed?

6(i) In the first limb of his arguments, the learned senior counsel Mr. Nageshwara Rao for the petitioners submitted that though the form filled in by the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the land in question was processed under the ULC Act, the actual physical possession of the land in question was not taken by the competent authority under the said Act, till the said Act was repealed by the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 and therefore the proceedings under the ULC Act had stood lapsed in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act of 1999. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 and in case of Gajanan Kamalya Patil Vs. Addl. Collector & Competent Authority (2014) 12 SCC 523 in support of his submission. The learned Addl. Solicitor General Mr. P.S Narsimha and the Addl. Advocate Geneal Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG for the respondents also fairly conceded that the respondents have not been able to produce on record any document to show that the defacto possession of land was taken over by the competent authority under the ULC Act till the Repeal of the ULC Act in 1999, though the lands had already vested with the respondent-State in view of the proceedings under Section 10(3) of the said ULC Act.

6(ii) So far as the proceedings under the ULC Act are concerned, it traspires from the documents on record that the petitioner No.1 had filled in the form under Section 6 of the ULC Act in respect of his holdings including the Khasra No. 194. The said form was processed and the said land had vested in the State Government under Section 10(3) of the said Act. The notices under Section 10(5) were also issued to the petitioner No.1 by the competent authority. Thereafter he filed the appeal being No. 57/91 before the Divisional Commissioner on 18.12.91 on the ground that he was not aware about the order passed by the competent authority till the possession was forcibly sought to be taken from him in September, 1991. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.3.93 (Annex.6), on the ground of being barred by law of limitation. On the same day, he filed the Writ Petition being No. 2011/93 before the High Court challenging the very applicability of the ULC Act to the said land. It appears that the High Court passed an interim order dated 6.4.93 in the said petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land. The said order continued till the dismissal of the petition on 26.4.97. The said order passed in the SBCWP No. 2011/93 remained unchallenged at the instance of the said petitioner, however the possession was not taken by the competent authority because of the order passed by the High Court in one another petition being No. 3235/95 filed by the said petitioner, challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State in respect of the said land. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the actual possession of the land was not taken by the competent authority though the land had vested in State Government under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act. The learned counsels for the respondents have also not been able to show the defacto possession having been taken by the respondent-State till the ULC Act was repealed by the Act of 1999. Under the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion would be that the proceedings under the ULC Act had stood lapsed in view of the provisions contained in the Repeal Act of 1999.