1976 (10) TMI 157 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.
2. Authorization of the Tehsildar to perform functions under Section 4(1).
3. Particularization of the purpose for land acquisition.
4. Compliance with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953:

The appellant challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) on the grounds that the State Government used the word "appear" instead of "consider," indicating a failure to apply its mind. However, the court held that the mere use of the word "appear" does not invalidate the order. The court emphasized that the State Government had sufficient material before it to base its decision and that the notification substantially complied with the requirements of Section 4. The court agreed with the reasons advanced by the learned single Judge and found no merit in the appellant's contention.

2. Authorization of the Tehsildar to perform functions under Section 4(1):

The appellant contended that the State Government erred in authorizing the Tehsildar to perform functions under Section 4(1) as the acquisition was for a company, invoking Section 38 of the Act. The court found no substance in this contention, stating that Section 38 is an enabling provision and does not take away the power vested in the State Government under Section 4(1).

3. Particularization of the purpose for land acquisition:

The appellant argued that the purpose mentioned in the notification was too vague, making it difficult for the interested parties to file effective objections. The court noted that the purpose stated was "for General Engineering Works, Bharatpur," which was sufficient to inform the public. The court further observed that the appellant was aware that the land was being acquired for Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd., and thus, no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

4. Compliance with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956:

The appellant argued that the non-compliance with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, and Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956, vitiated the entire proceedings. The court noted that the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, framed by the Central Government, do not apply to Rajasthan. However, Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956, is applicable and requires an inquiry to be made before initiating proceedings. The court found that no such inquiry was made, and the owner of the land was not given an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the compliance of Rule 32 is mandatory and its non-compliance vitiates the entire proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, and allowed the writ petition. The impugned notification dated March 13, 1973, and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.