9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o them required by the Urban Improvement Trust , Jaipur for a public purpose, namely, for implementation of a development scheme viz. Civil Lines Extension Scheme. It is somewhat strange that a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court (R.N.Pyne, J.) should have by his order dated March 13, 1984 entertained a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondents , issued a rule nisi thereon requiring the reasons as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the appellants herein, the State of Rajasthan, the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur to forbear from giving effect to the impugned notification dated February 8, 1984 and passed an ad-interim exparte prohibitory order restraining them from taking any steps requiring the respondents under sub-s. (5) of 52 of the Act to surrender or deliver possession of the lands acquired forthwith or upon their failure to do so to take immediate steps under sub-s. (6) thereof to secure such possession. We are distressed to find that the learned Single Judge despite a long line of decisions of this Court starting from Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hment of a branch office and for construction of residential houses for their Director and other Senior Executives. The Special Officer adjourned the case from - time to time and issued several notices to the respondents for personal hearing under s. 52 (3) of the Act. The respondents through their representative appeared at each of these hearings and sought adjournment on one pretext or another. Significantly although the respondents participated in the proceedings before the Special Officer, they did not raise any objection as to the power and authority of the State Government of Rajasthan to acquire the notified land under s. 52 (1) of the Act or the legality and propriety of the notice issued by the Special Officer under s , 52 (2) or his jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry under s. 52 (3). Nor did the respondents place any material before the Special Officer to show that they really needed the notified land for the purpose of expansion of their business activities to the State of Rajasthan. It is pertinent to observe that the respondents had been shifting their stand before the Special Officer. As already stated , they had in their reply dated September 8, 1975 alleged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to retain the said land on payment of the prescribed fee for converting the land use from agriculture to hotel business. Apparently, the respondents were not serious in undertaking the new venture of starting a Three Star Hotel on an area of 6,000 square yards as their real object was to get the notified land released from acquisition. The February 21, 1979, there was a meeting at the Secretariat in the Urban Development Housing Department between officers of that Department and those of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. It was clarified on behalf of the Improvement Trust that the notified land in its entirety was needed for implementation of the development scheme of the Trust. The Improvement Trust accordingly by its letter dated March 5, 1979 requested the State Government that necessary orders be passed for acquisition of Khasra No. 383 in village Madrampura admeasuring 14 bighas 16 biswas and a notification to that effect issued under s. 52(1) of the Act. It was pointed out that a public notice under s. 55(2) of the Act as regards the notified land had already been issued by the Special Officer , Town Planning Department , Jaipur dated June 25 , 1975 , and the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt at the Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Art. 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. The notification dated February 8 , 1984 issued by the State Government under s. 52(1) of the Act became effective the moment it was published in the official Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by the Special Officer , Town Planning Department , Jaipur under s. 52(2) for the grant of an appropriate writ , direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification issued by the State Government under s. 52(1) of the Act. If the respondents felt aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands situate at Jaipur and wanted to challenge the validity of the notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under s. 52(1) of the Act by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution , the remedy of the respondents of the grant of such relief had to be sought by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
