9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. 2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, after authorization of the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project. 3. Validity of multiple awards under the Land Acquisition Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: The appellants argued that the entire acquisition proceedings were void due to non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Act, which requires the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The High Court acknowledged that this provision is mandatory but dismissed the objection as belated. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provision is indeed mandatory and non-compliance renders the notification and subsequent acquisition proceedings void. The Court noted that the object of Section 4 is to ensure that the owner has clear notice of the intended entry before any officer authorized by the Government can enter the land. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning that the objection was belated, stating that the appellants had questioned the jurisdiction from the outset and did not participate in the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from giving effect to the awards. 2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, after authorization of the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project: The appellants contended that after the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, was authorized to perform the functions of a Collector in the districts of Ganganagar, Bikaner, and Jaisalmer, the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, became functus officio and thus had no jurisdiction to continue the acquisition proceedings. The High Court found that the direction to the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, was not withdrawn by the notification authorizing the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project. Therefore, the High Court held that the proceedings conducted by the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, were valid. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue due to its decision on the first issue. 3. Validity of multiple awards under the Land Acquisition Act: The appellants argued that under the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector could make only one award in respect of a notification, and therefore, the second award made by the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, was void. The High Court held that Award No. 1, which related to Khasra No. 158, had become final and could not be altered by Award No. 2. It concluded that both awards were valid but confined Award No. 2 to Khasra No. 182/2. The Supreme Court did not address this issue explicitly, as the decision on the first issue rendered the subsequent awards void. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from giving effect to the awards. The Court held that the non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, rendered the acquisition proceedings void. The other issues raised by the appellants were not addressed due to the resolution of the first issue.
|
