Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors  INSC 602 (1 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Kirpal B.N. (J)
1996 AIR 520 1996 SCC (1) 334 JT 1995 (8) 179 1995 SCALE (6)389
O R D
preliminary Notification under Section 4  of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition
Act, 1953 [for short, 'the Act'] was published in the Gazette on October 17,
1963 acquiring 99 Biswas & 17 Bighas of land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur
villages for 'planned development of Jaipur city'. It comprises of Survey No.
265 admeasuring 12 bighas of the land in Rampura Roopa village. The declaration
under Section 6 was published on January 7, 1991 after the improvement scheme had been finalised under the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1969. In the meanwhile, the appellant
had purchased 453 sq. yards, viz., 3 biswas of the land under a registered sale
deed dated 15th July,
the notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act on April 12, 1971. The appellant filed an application for exemption on July 15, 1991 which was turned down. He also
filed an objection to the notice under Section 9 regarding Survey No. 265/1.
Since exemption was rejected on May 17, 1972 he filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned
Single Judge by his order dated November 15, 1979 dismissed the writ petition and the same was confirmed by
the Division bench of the High Court on July 16, 1980 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
194 of 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave.
P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised three-fold
contention, viz., that there is an unexplained inordinate delay between
publication of the the preliminary notification under Section 4  and the
declaration under Section 6 vitiating the validity of the notification under
Section 4 . So it needs to be quashed on that premise. He further contended
that Anand Nursery which is adjacent to the appellant's site was given
exemption from the acquisition whereas the appellant's site used for residential
purpose has not been exempted. The appellant had constructed the house and is
living therein and thus this invidious discrimination offends Article 14 of the
Constitution. Lastly, he contended that survey number initially mentioned was
'265' whereas in the notice under Section 9 it was mentioned as '265/1' and
that, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are invalid in law as it was not
covered by 4(1) notification.
not find any substance in any of these contentions. It is seen that long after
the notification under Section 4  was published in the Gazette, the
appellant had purchased the property and constructed the house thereon.
Therefore, as against the State his purchase was not lawful and it could not be
used against the State to cloth it with a colour of title as against the State.
It is an encumbrance against the State and when the acquisition was finalised
and the possession is taken, the State under Section 16 is entitled to have the
possession with absolute title free from all encumbrances. The appellant cannot
get any title much less valid title to the property.
contended that the unexplained delay in issuing declaration under Section 6 is
fatal to the acquisition. That contention is no longer available to the
appellant. He himself had purchased the property in 1970 long after the
acquisition and, therefore, he cannot take the ground of unexplained delay
between the date of issuance of notification under Section 4  and the
declaration under Section 6. It is seen that after the publication of the
notification under Section 4  the improvement scheme was prepared and sent
to the Government for finalisation thereof. It has taken, as usual, certain
time for approval and after the declaration under Section 6 was duly published
in the Gazette. Under these circumstances, we do not find any inordinate delay
in the issuance of declaration under Section 6 and the valid notification under
Section 4 does not become invalid on that account due to inaction on the part
of the subordinates.
true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand Nursery had the
benefit of the exemption. The wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the
authorities will not cloth others to get the same benefit nor can Article 14 be
pressed into service on the ground of invidious discrimination. The wrong
mention of Survey number in notice under Section 9 cannot cast cloud on valid
notification issued under Section 4  of the Act. It is enough that main
survey number is mentioned in the notification under Section 4 and the details
thereof would be supplemented at the appropriate stage. Mention of the
sub-division of the main survey number does not render the notification under
Section 4  does not get vitiated.
appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Pages: 1 2