Noor Mohammed and Others vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

B.J. Shethna, J.—The petitions have challenged in this petition the impugned notification dated 9.8.94 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent notification u/s 6 of the Act issued on 14.3.95. Learned Counsel Shri Maheshwari for the petitioner submitted that after issuing the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to file their objections u/s 5-A of the Act, therefore, on this ground alone the impugned notifications u/s 4 and 6 are required to be set aside. However, learned Counsel Shri Arora for the respondent Municipal Board vehemently submitted that the notification was already issued in 1992, but its publication was made only 1994 in the news paper and according to the Judgment of Apex Court in case of Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt Vs. State of Gujarat and others, this last date of publication in news paper has to be taken into consideration. The same was published in ''Rajasthan Patrika Daily'' on 9.8.94 and ''Rajasthan Dainik'' Udaipur on 7.8.94 thereafter, on 23.2.1995 notification u/s 6 was issued, therefore, it was issued within one year. After the notification u/s 4(1) was issued on 25.2.1992 and notice was given to the petitioners to which they have filed objection u/s 5A of the Act on 26.3.1992. Considering their objections the notification u/s 4(1) was issued and published in 1994 though it was earlier published in March, 1992. He, therefore, submitted that having considered the objections of the petitioners there was no need for the State Govt. to hear the objections of the petitioners once again after notification u/s 4(1) was issued once again on 9.8.94.

If this argument of Mr. Arora is to be accepted then admittedly notification u/s 6 was issued after the period of one year. Because, if Section 4(1) notification was published on 25.2.1992 then Section 6 notification has to be issued within one year. In this case, notification u/s 6 was issued on 23.2.1995 which was admittedly after one year. Therefore, on this ground alone this writ petition was required to be allowed and both the notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 were required to be quashed. However, the submission of Mr. Arora was that the last date of publication in the news paper was 9.8.94 therefore, the limitation of one year is to be counted from that date and according to that the notification u/s 6 was issued within time. In this case a strange situation is there where Section 4, notification was issued twice, once on 25.2.1992 and second time on 9.8.94. Section 4 notification could only be issued once. It can be issued only after the first notification is quashed or withdrawn by the State Govt. itself. Here, in this case notification u/s 4 was issued once again on 9.8.94. Therefore, if the argument of Mr. Arora is to be accepted that date of issuance of notification u/s 4 has to be considered as 9.8.94 then there was no opportunity given to the petitioners to file their objections u/s 5A of the Act. Hence, on this ground, this writ petition was required to be allowed and impugned notification u/s 4 and 6 were required to be quashed.

In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned notification issued u/s 4 on 9.8.94 (Annex. 7) and notification issued u/s 6 on 23.2.1995 are hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

At this stage, a request was made that State Govt. be permitted to issue fresh notification u/s 4 of the Act. No liberty is required to be given to the State Govt. It is always open to the State Govt. to issue fresh notification in accordance with law, if it is permissible under the law.