9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the notification under Section 4 [1] of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. 2. Exemption from acquisition based on adjacent properties. 3. Alleged invidious discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Discrepancy in survey numbers in the acquisition proceedings. Analysis: 1. Validity of Notification under Section 4 [1]: The appellant argued that the delay between the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4 [1] and the declaration under Section 6 rendered the notification invalid. However, the court held that the appellant purchased the property long after the notification was issued, making his purchase an encumbrance against the State. The court emphasized that the State is entitled to take possession with absolute title free from all encumbrances, and the appellant cannot claim a valid title to the property. 2. Exemption from Acquisition: The appellant contended that Anand Nursery was exempted from acquisition while his residential property was not, leading to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the wrong exemption granted to Anand Nursery does not entitle others to the same benefit. The court clarified that invidious discrimination cannot be claimed based on the actions of the authorities in granting exemptions. 3. Discrepancy in Survey Numbers: The appellant raised an issue regarding the discrepancy in survey numbers mentioned in the acquisition proceedings. He argued that the mention of a different survey number in the notice under Section 9 invalidated the acquisition proceedings. The court rejected this argument, stating that as long as the main survey number is correctly mentioned in the notification under Section 4 [1], any details or subdivisions can be supplemented at a later stage without affecting the validity of the notification. 4. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs, upholding the validity of the notification under Section 4 [1] of the Act and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding delay, exemption, and survey number discrepancies. The judgment emphasized the State's right to possession free from encumbrances and clarified that administrative errors in exemptions do not constitute invidious discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
|
