Land acquisition for a multipurpose scheme was challenged for vague purpose, denial of hearing, delayed declaration and award approval, non-payment and discrimination. The court rejected these grounds, held Section 24(2) inapplicable, and dismissed all writ petitions without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18486/2016
-Petitioners
Versus
-Respondents
2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18596/2011
-Petitioner
VERSUS
(2 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Respondents
3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18597/2011
Sons of Shri Chandrabhan Agrawal, by caste Agrawal, residents of B-106, Ranjeet nagar, Bharatpur.
-Petitioners
VERSUS
-Respondents
4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9100/2012
(3 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
All residents of Rupla Paysa, Old Bayana Bus Stand, Bharatpur.
-Petitioners
VERSUS
-Respondents
5. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2175/2014
All By Caste Jat, Residents Of Nagla Barela, Baccha Mandi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
(4 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Petitioners
Versus
-Respondents
6. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2023/2014
All Residents Of Village Post Itvamda, Tehsil Veir, District Bharatpur, Presently Residing At B- 23, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur.
-Petitioners
Versus
(5 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Respondents
7. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2174/2014
8. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2360/2014
(6 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Petitioners
Versus
-Respondents
9. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2552/2014
-Petitioner
Versus
-Respondents
(7 of 35)
CW-18486/2016]
10. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2573/2014
-Petitioner
Versus
11. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2574/2014
(8 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
District Bharatpur, Presently Residing At 40, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur.
-Petitioners
Versus
12. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4384/2014
-Petitioners
Versus
(9 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
13. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4505/2014
-Petitioner
Versus
14. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4522/2014
-Petitioner
Versus
(10 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
Secretariat, Jaipur.
-Respondents
15. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5132/2014
And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
-Respondents
16. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9451/2014
(11 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
Residents Of Outside Mathura Gate, Kacchi Sarai, Old Power House, Bharatpur.
-Petitioners
Versus
-Respondents
17. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12254/2014
-Petitioner
Versus
-Respondents
(12 of 35)
CW-18486/2016]
18. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14403/2016
Yaduveer Singh Son Of Shri Charan Singh, Age 67 Years, Resident Of Rajeev Colony, Near F.C.I. Godown, Railway Station, Bharatpur.
-Petitioner
Versus
-Respondents
19. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13646/2010
-Petitioner
Versus
(13 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Respondents
20. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14612/2011
-Petitioner
Versus
-Respondents
21. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 368/2010
-Petitioner
Versus
(14 of 35)
CW-18486/2016]
-Respondents
22. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13647/2010
Versus
23. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13648/2010
-Petitioner
Versus
(15 of 35)
CW-18486/2016]
4. Collector, Bharatpur
-Respondents
24. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13649/2010
-Petitioner
Versus
25. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8956/2011
-Petitioner
Versus
(16 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
4. Collector, Bharatpur
-Respondents
26. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8959/2011
-Petitioner
Versus
-Respondents
27. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8960/2011
-Petitioner
Versus
(17 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Respondents
28. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14613/2011
Age 63 Years, Resident Of 5, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur
-Petitioner
Versus
-Respondents
29. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2507/2008
Girraj Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Shri Prem Raj Tiwari, age 52 years, resident of Super Medi, In front of Zanana Hospital, Mori Char Bagh, Bharatpur.
-Petitioner
Versus
(18 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
-Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Mehta Mr.Sameer Sharma Mr.GK Sharma Ms.Lalima Purohit for Mr.Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr.Deendayal Sharma, Dy. GC Mr.LL Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment
Date : 10th July, 2017
By this bunch of writ petitions, a challenge is made to the acquisition of the land in reference to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act of 1894”) and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013”).
It is stated that the land owned by the petitioners was sought to be acquired earlier on two occasions but the proceedings were not completed. In the meanwhile, the petitioners were permitted to use the land and even in few cases, to raise construction.
(19 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
The respondents initially decided to acquire the land in the year 1993. It was to establish multipurpose scheme but it was dropped/withdrawn by issuing a Notification on 10th August, 2000. The respondents again framed a scheme for use of land for multipurpose. It was, however, dropped on 24th December, 2002. In the meanwhile, few petitioners made applications for conversion of the land and even to raise construction, which was allowed. The respondents, thereupon, issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 on 06th September, 2006. The initiation of the process for acquisition and subsequent notification have been challenged by the petitioners on multiple grounds which are dealt with as under :
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
(A) The purpose of acquisition not disclosed :
It is stated that the Notification merely disclosed the acquisition for “multipurpose scheme”. It is quite vague and does not comply with the mandate of the law. The purpose of acquisition is required to be disclosed in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 and also in the case of Munshi Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1973 SC 1150 . It is apart from the judgments of different High Courts.
The respondents have contested the issue. It is submitted that the land was acquired for multipurpose scheme No.10. The approval to the layout plan was given under Section 38
(20 of 35)
CW-18486/2016]
of the UIT Act. It shows purpose of the scheme. In view of the above, the case is not made out to allege non-disclosure of purpose of acquisition. The Notification makes a reference to multipurpose scheme No.10. It shows specific purpose. The prayer is accordingly made not to accept the first ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
A reference of following judgments has been given to support the arguments :
(i) Aflatoon Vs. LT Governor reported in 1975(4) SCC 285
(ii) Smt.Ratni Devi Vs. Chief Commissioner reported in AIR 1975 SC 1699
(iii) Sooraram Pratap Reddy Vs. District Collector reported in 2008(9) SCC 552
(iv) State of Tamilnadu Vs. L. Krishnan reported in AIR 1996 SC 497
(v) Ajay Kishan Singhal Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1996 SC 2677
(vi)Nand Kishore Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3654
(vii) Jawahar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in DBSAW NO.1283/2014
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments.
While issuing the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, purpose of the acquisition has to be given. It cannot be by narrating it for the public purpose only. In the instant case, the
(21 of 35)
CW-18486/2016]
purpose is specific i.e. to develop multipurpose scheme No.10, for which, approval was given under Section 38 of the UIT Act. It gives details of the scheme.
I have even perused the judgments cited by the parties. Applying the ratio propounded there, it cannot be said that the purpose indicated for acquisition of the land is either vague or has not been disclosed. The acquisition of land is for specific purpose i.e. to develop multipurpose scheme No.10. The layout plan discloses the details of the scheme.
In the light of the aforesaid, the first ground raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is further to be added that even if the land has been acquired for a specific purpose, it can be used for other public purposes, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jaswant Rai Kochhar & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1352.
(B) The opportunity of personal hearing on the objection under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 has not been given :
It is stated by learned counsel that the petitioners had submitted objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 raising many grounds. It was even on the ground that no purpose for acquisition has been disclosed. The fact about conversion of the land followed by issuance of the “Patta” and permission to raise construction was also narrated. The petitioners were not called to provide personal hearing, though, it was mandatory as per Section
(22 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
5A of the Act of 1894. In view of the above, a prayer is made to set aside the acquisition as compliance of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 has not been made, though, it is mandatory.
Learned counsel for the respondents have denied the allegation. It is submitted that many petitioners did not submit the objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 thus they have no right to raise the aforesaid issue. The details of those writ petitions have been given.
A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court has also been given where it is held that if a party fails to submit objection under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 then it cannot challenge the acquisition on the ground of the alleged noncompliance of the said provision.
The other petitioners submitted objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and orally alleged denial of opportunity of personal hearing. It is without making specific pleading that the notice for hearing was not served. The petitioners have concealed the fact about the notice of hearing given to them. The notice for hearing was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 08th December, 2006 to those, who raised the objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. The petitioners later on filed affidavit to indicate that service of notice was not made in person and, otherwise, they were not knowing English thus even signatures are forged. An additional affidavit was also filed on 27th January, 2017 along with exhibit A/1 to show that no notice for hearing was given. The reply filed by the respondents
(23 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
along with an affidavit shows that the objections were submitted on behalf of Mr.Sanjay Singhal through his Advocate, who was none else but his father Tarachand Singhal. The notice for hearing was also given to his mother Nirmla Devi and was received by the family members.
In the other writ petition/s also, the fact pertaining to the issuance of notice has been narrated and, therein also, the Advocate put in appearance for hearing. The copy of “Vakalatnama” has been enclosed to show appearance of the respresentative. A copy of the dispatch register has been filed by Mr.Kishan Singh Verma on the direction of this Court. It is to show issuance of the notice. The respondents earlier submitted documents along with the reply to show representation of the parties. It is to show an opportunity of hearing. The reply to the writ petition/s makes a reference of service of notice on the Khatedar and has not been disputed by the petitioners while filing rejoinder.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the objections were of no substance as it was nothing but narration of the fact about conversion of the land and permission to raise construction, etc.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
An argument in reference to Section 5A of the Act of 1894 has been raised. The argument for it would not be available to those, who failed to submit objections. It is in view of the
(24 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
catena of judgments referred by the respondents. The issue now remains for those, who raised objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894.
It is alleged that the opportunity of hearing was not given. The documents and the pleadings of both the parties have been perused. In the writ petition/s, initially a specific allegation was not made about denial of the hearing in absence of service of notice. The affidavits were submitted subsequently. The respondents have shown appearance of the Advocates to represent the parties. The perusal of the record shows that the Advocates have appeared on behalf of the parties, which cannot be in absence of notice. Once an Advocate or the party put in appearance then requirement of personal hearing gets satisfied. As per the direction of this Court, the respondents have produced the dispatch register and other documents to show dispatch of the notices for hearing and appearance thereupon through the Advocates, for which, a “Vakalatnama” was filed before the Land Acquisition Officer.
In the circumstances aforesaid, I am unable to accept that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to those, who have raised objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Thus, the second ground raised by the petitioners is decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
(c) Delay in making declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 :
It is alleged by the petitioners that the declaration
(25 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 has been made after lapse of one year from the date of last publication of the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
In the written arguments submitted by the petitioners, dates of the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 have been given. As per their own statement, the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was pasted in the locality on 17th October, 2006, which is the relevant date to reckon the period of one year. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made on 10th October, 2007. As per the details given above, it cannot be said that declaration was made after a year.
It is, no doubt, true that the publication of declaration in the Gazette was made on 25th October, 2007, however, that is not material date in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ SH Rangappa versus State of Karnataka & anr” , (2002) 1 SCC 538 . Therein, the crucial date is not taken to be the date of publication of declaration in the Gazette but the publication. The relevant paras 8, 9 and 12 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:
“8. We wish to clarify that the words "publish" and "from the date of publication of the notification occurring in provision (ii) to Section 6(1) refer to the publication of the Section 4 notification and have no reference to the publication of any notification under Section 6. Under Section 6(1), it is only a declaration which is required to be made, the time limit being within one year of the publication of the Section 4 notification. The main purpose for the
(26 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
issuance of declaration under Section 6 is provided by sub-section (3), namely, that the declaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed inter alia for a public purpose and after the making of the declaration the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner provided by the Act. Sub-section (2) requires the declaration to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate and in addition thereto the Collector is also required to cause public notice of the substance of the declaration to be given in the convenient places in the said locality.
(27 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
In the light of the judgment, referred to above, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 cannot be said to be after lapse of one year.
(D) Non-issuance of Notice under Section 11 of the Act of
1894:
It is alleged that the notice under Sections 9(3) and 11 of the Act of 1894 was issued and served on many land holders with a direction to put in appearance before the Land Acquisition Officer on 14th October, 2009 but similar notices were not issued on the petitioners.
(28 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
Learned counsel for the respondents have contested the aforesaid.
It is submitted that the notice was issued to those, in
whose name, the land was existing. It could not have been issued to a person, in whose name, the land does not exist. It is further stated that the petitioners have filed claim before the Land Acquisition Officer thus allegation of non-issuance of notice under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 became false on the face of it. A reference before the Civil Court was also sought after the award.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find that the notices under Sections 9(3) and 11 of the Act of 1894 were issued and, according to the petitioners themselves, notices were served on many land holders requiring them to appear before the Authority on 14th October, 2009. The notice is to be issued for measurement and to find out value of the land.
The claim pursuant to it was made by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer. The notice could not have been given to those, in whose name, the land was not existing. The petitioners otherwise made their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer.
In view of the above, the requirement of the notice to the person interested has been met, as it was issued to those, whose names were existing in the record. A claim has been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer thus the argument in reference to Section 9(3) and 11 of the Act of 1894 cannot be accepted.
(29 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
(E) The Award is time barred and is undated :
It is stated that approval of award vide letter dated 10th November, 2009 is not tenable as it was after expiry of the period given under Section 11A of the Act of 1894. It is apart from the fact that it was an undated award. In view of the above, a prayer is made about lapse of the acquisition. In the written arguments, it is also alleged that no award was passed after the approval, though, no pleading exists in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that even as per the last date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 given by the petitioners, the approval of award was within the period given under Section 11A of the Act of 1894. The last date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is 05th August, 2008, whereas, the approval to the award was given on 10th November, 2009 itself. It is further stated that even an interim order was operating during the intervening period thus the question of delay in passing of award does not arise because the period in which the interim order was operating, is to be ignored. It cannot be counted towards the period given under Section 11A of the Act of 1894. The details of the litigation initiated by the petitioners from time to time and interim order passed therein has been given.
I have considered the submissions and find that in the writ petition/s, allegations about delay in passing the award has not been raised, rather, it is for the approval, though, in the written arguments, additional grounds of non-issuance of the
(30 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
award has been taken without a chance to the other party to reply to it. The last date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is dated 05th August, 2008 even as per the statement of the petitioners. The approval to the award was given on 10th November, 2009. It is otherwise a fact that the interim orders have been passed by this Court from time to time in different litigation, which have been detailed out by learned counsel for the respondents along with the orders passed therein. In few cases, the writ petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition and, till then, the interim order was operating. The period of interim order has to be excluded for reckoning the period. In few cases, the interim order still exists.
In view of the above, it cannot be said to be a case where approval of the award is after lapse of period given under Section 11A of the Act of 1894. So far as the issue of nonissuance of the award is concerned, it has not been raised in the writ petition/s. The stay was operating in various writ petitions filed in the year 2007 onwards and certain writ petitions were filed up to the year 2010. In fact, due to the interim order, measures for payment of compensation were also effected but the aforesaid issue would be considered separately. In the facts given above, it cannot be said that approval of the award is subsequent to the period given under Section 11A of the Act of 1894 and issue of non-issuance of the award subsequent to the approval has not been raised in the writ petition/s.
(31 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
(F) Deemed lapse of the acquisition claimed under the Act
of 2013 :
The ground of deemed lapse of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 has not been taken by the petitioners in their writ petitions. The aforesaid issue has been raised in the written arguments. The argument aforesaid cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 applies to those awards, which were passed five years prior to 01st January, 2014 when the Act of 2013 was given effect. In the instant case, the acquisition award is not prior to five years to the crucial date thus Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 has no application.
(G) Non-payment of the compensation :
It is alleged that the compensation pursuant to the award has not been paid by mode given by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 982.
The aforesaid allegation has been contested by the respondents. It is submitted that after approval of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer sent a letter to the UIT informing that a sum of Rs.3,15,03,784/- would be required for distribution of amount towards compensation. A list of 341 persons was also sent. A resolution was passed by the UIT to sanction the amount. The Court has passed an interim order in various writ petitions. The compensation to the left out persons was to be given,
(32 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
accordingly, they were served with the notice. It was even by indicating payment towards income tax and deduction as a consequence thereof. They were asked to submit Permanent Account Number (PAN) to deduct the amount of TDS. Only 10 persons submitted their Permanent Account Number. An order was issued on 15th March, 2011 to send the cheques and, accordingly, on 26th April, 2016, the cheques in favour of 131 persons were sent for its distribution through Tehsildar. In the meanwhile, a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.2744/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 12th October, 2011. As a consequence of it, around 150 persons also become entitled for compensation. A notice was again issued but only 38 persons submitted their Permanent Account Number, however, an additional amount of Rs.1,43,07,295/- was sanctioned in favour of 150 interested persons apart from 131 persons earlier dealt with. The Tehsildar, Bharatpur, however, returned 140 cheques as the validity period had expired and, accordingly, fresh cheques were sent to Tehsildar on 05th June, 2013. The interested persons did not collect the cheques despite publication of notice in the newspaper after their initial default. The publication of notice was on 08th July, 2014 and, accordingly, the amount was sent to the Court vide letter dated 18th November, 2015. The amount is now lying with Court.
I have considered the facts given by the parties and find that so far as the payment of compensation is concerned, action has been taken by the respondents, though, process was effected due to the interim order of this Court in various litigation
(33 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
from time to time. A public notice was, however, issued in the newspaper to request collection of the cheques. The amount of compensation has been deposited in the court thus it cannot be said to be a case of non-payment of compensation thus argument of learned counsel for the petitioners for it cannot be accepted.
(H) Discrimination :
It is alleged that while making acquisition, the land of few land holders was left while acquiring the land of the petitioners. It is also alleged that the parties were called for negotiation to allot 30 per cent developed land, out of which, 15 per cent was for commercial use. It was in ignorance of the fact that in the neighboring area of Dr.Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Nagar, a decision was taken for allotment of a plot of bigger size than that of the acquired land. The Court had taken cognizance of it while hearing the case. The proposal to allot equivalent or more land was then withdrawn. A discrimination is alleged on the ground aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land was acquired without discrimination. It is for that reason, the specific plea with required details to show discrimination has not been raised by the petitioners in their writ petitions. The petitioners have made allegations that lands were left in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 without realising that it was vested in the government thus no acquisition or declaration was required. It is coming out from the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 25th January, 2007. It is further
(34 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
submitted that the proposal to allot the land in the neighboring scheme has already been recalled.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find that the case of discrimination has been alleged but pleadings do not exists with specific illustration to show discrimination. The vague allegation cannot be accepted. The respondents have otherwise clarified the facts and submitted that nobody’s land has been left from acquisition and, if the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was not issued for certain lands, it was on account of vesting of the land in the government. It has been referred by the Land Acquisition Officer in letter dated 25th January, 2007. The proposal of allotment of the land in Dr.Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Nagar has already been withdrawn and it may be on account of observation of the Court but now the fact remains that no discrimination exists in the case. Thus, even the aforesaid argument of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
(I) Other Issues :
The petitioners have made allegations about reference of the matter to the Settlement Committee where a decision was taken to call the petitioners for negotiation, who have approached the court and interim order exists in their favour. They were, however, denied allotment of the equivalent land than acquired. It is duly replied and otherwise specific pleading to this effect does not exist in the writ petition filed prior to the year 2014. In any
(35 of 35)
[CW-18486/2016]
case, a clarification has already been made indicating that no one would be offered land equivalent to the land, so acquired. It is at the same time, the acquisition of the land is without leaving anybody’s land in the instant case. The parties can, however, be called for negotiation.
In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions, hence, the same are dismissed
with no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(M.N. BHANDARI)J.
Preeti, PA
3 issues framed by the court
Did the reference to multipurpose scheme No.10 sufficiently disclose the purpose of acquisition?
Was the personal-hearing requirement under Section 5A satisfied by appearance through advocates?
Was the acquisition liable to lapse for delay under the 1894 Act or under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi & Ors.Referred¶339
(1992) 2 SCC 168 · Who else cites this
Munshi Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶339
AIR 1973 SC 1150 · Who else cites this
Aflatoon Vs. LT GovernorReferred¶345
1975(4) SCC 285 · Who else cites this
Smt.Ratni Devi Vs. Chief CommissionerReferred¶346
AIR 1975 SC 1699 · Who else cites this
Sooraram Pratap Reddy Vs. District CollectorReferred¶347
2008(9) SCC 552 · Who else cites this
State of Tamilnadu Vs. L. KrishnanReferred¶348
AIR 1996 SC 497 · Who else cites this
Ajay Kishan Singhal Vs. UOIReferred¶349
AIR 1996 SC 2677 · Who else cites this
Nand Kishore Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.Referred¶350
AIR 2010 SC 3654 · Who else cites this
Jawahar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶351
Jawahar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in DBSAW NO.1283/2014
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jaswant Rai Kochhar & Ors.Relied on¶358
AIR 1996 SC 1352 · Who else cites this
SH Rangappa versus State of Karnataka & anrApplied¶385
(2002) 1 SCC 538 · Who else cites this
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors.Referred¶422
AIR 2014 SC 982. · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Shyam Babu Singhal
Smt. Nirmala Singhal
State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur
Land Acquisition Officer And City Magistrate, Bharatpur
Collector, Bharatpur
M.N. BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
