Girdhari Lal son of Shri Ram lalji vs State of Rajasthan

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have

approached this Court craving for the following relief :-

"By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the Land acquisition proceeding initiated vide notification dated 29.1.1993 under section 4 of the Act of 1894 and declaration under section 6 of the Act 1894 issued on 19.5.1994 pertaining to Araji No. 235 of village boranada Dist Jodhpur may kindly be quashed qua the petitioners and the said acquisition proceeding regarding acquisition of Araji No. 235 may kindly be declared lapsed as per provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013."

Facts in brief are that the petitioners no.1 and 2 are

recorded khatedars of land admeasuring 1 bigha 6 biswas

situated in khasra no.235 in the revenue village

Boranada/Naarnadi, District Jodhpur whereas the

petitioners no.3 to 5 have purchased land admeasuring 1

bigha 5 biswas situated in khasra no.235 from the original

khatedars. The mutation of the land in question has been

entered in the relevant revenue record in the name of the

present petitioners. A notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to herein after as ''the

Act of 1894'') was issued by the respondents in the year

1993 for intended acquisition of revenue land in Boranada

and Narnadi villages of Jodhpur for development and

extension of Rajasthan State Industrial Development &

Investment Corporation (RIICO) through land acquisition

officer, the S.D.O., Jodhpur. The respondents through the

said acquisition proposed to acquire total land admeasuring

2870 bighas 8 biswas. Thereafter, a declaration under

Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued and a total of 2799

bighas 7 biswas land was decided to be acquired. After

issuance of the notification and declaration for acquisition of

the land, certain khatedars submitted their objections to the

land acquisition officer who passed the final award on

5.1.1996 after considering such objections. Despite

issuance of the final award, the petitioners as well as their

predecessor in title refused to accept the compensation

offered to them and in these circumstances, a reference

under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 was made to the

Civil Court in the year 2010. Finally, the amount of

compensation was deposited by the land acquisition officer

with the Civil Court on 22.10.2010. Pursuant to the passing

of the final award, the land acquisition officer sought a

mauka report from the Tehsildar, Luni and was informed

that the land was being used for residential & other

purposes by the khatedars are still in possession thereof. It

is the admitted case of the parties that till date, the

petitioners have not accepted the amount of compensation

in the reference petition pending before the civil Court and

also that possession of the acquired land was never taken

by the Land Acquisition Authority.

During the pendency of these proceedings, the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ''the

Act of 2013'') came into force with effect from 1.1.2014.

The petitioners have claimed that it has clearly been

stipulated in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 that in cases

where the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under

the Act of 1894 and the award has been made 5 years or

earlier prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 but

physical possession of the land has not been taken, the

proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the

State Government if it so chooses would be required to

initiate fresh proceedings of land acquisition in accordance

with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the

following judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court :-

(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 ;

(2) Union of India and others vs. Shiv Raj and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564 ; and (3) Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in decided on 12.1.2015

and urged that as the factual position is admitted that

the possession of the acquired land was never taken from

the landholders, the land acquisition proceedings have

lapsed by the deeming effect of Section 24(2) of the Act of

2013. He thus submitted that the impugned notification of

land acquisition should be quashed and struck down.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the

respondent no.2 RIICO at whose behest the land was

acquired. In such reply, the fact that the possession of the

land in question was never taken by the land acquisition

officer pursuant to the issuance of the final award is not

denied.

The document Annex.6 placed on record with the writ

petition is a letter dated 19.1.2010 issued by the

respondent RIICO to the S.D.O., Jodhpur requesting to

initiate proceedings for transfer of possession of the

acquired land to RIICO. Thus, till date admittedly the

possession of the acquired land has not been taken by the

competent authority.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly expounded in

the above judgments relied upon by the petitioners that

right conferred to the land holder under Section 24(2) of

the Act of 2013 is a statutory right and cannot be taken

away by any ordinance etc.

In this background and keeping in view the ratio of

the above mentioned Supreme Court judgments and the

clear language of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the land

acquisition proceedings have lapsed and have to be struck

down.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition

deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed and the

impugned land acquisition proceedings are hereby struck

down and quashed qua the petitioners.

No order as to cost.