INDRAPURI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 17-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

68 
INDRAPURI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMIT! LTD. 
A 
v. 
Tlffi·STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
September 17, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MA1'HEW, Y. V. CIIANDRACHUD, A. ALAGmIS· 
WAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
B 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953-De/ay in challenging acquisition pro-
ceedings-/!.fjecl of. 
A notice under s. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquis.ition ·Act, 1953 was issued 
by the State Government in May, 1960. It was published in. the· gazette in June, 
1960. A notice under s. 6 was issued in May, 1961 and under s. 9 in July, 1961. 
In January 1970 the appellants challenged the validity of these notifications. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners were 
C 
guilty of Inordinate delay. 
Dismissing the appeals to this Court. 
HELD : The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions on the ground of de-
lay. 
Any challenge to the notifications shoold be made within a reasonable 
time. 
[70B; A] 
If persons allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings 
D 
on the basis that the notification under s. 4 and the declaration under s. 6 were 
valid and then attacked the notification on grounds which were available to them 
at the time when the notification was published it would be putting a premium 
on dilatory tactics. [69E-F] 
A(latoo11 & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (19751) 1 SCR 802 followed. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 943 and 
E 
980 to 989 of 1973. 
Appeals by Special! Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 
12th April, 1973 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeals 
Nos. 311, 310; 313, 316, 317, 320 to 325 of 1971. 
A. K. Sen and M. M. Kshatriya for the appellants. 
Niren De Attomey General and L. M. Singhvi, S. M, Jain and S. K. 
Tewari, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C.J. These appeals are by special leave from the judgment 
datr-d 12 April, 1973 of the Rajasthan High Court. 
The State of Rajasthan proposed to acquire land for the planned 
development of the city of Jaipur. 
On 13 IMay, 1960 a notice was issued under section 4 of the 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter reffn-ed to as the 
Act) which was published in the Rajasthan Gai.ette on 9 June, 1960. 
No objection was made under section SA of the Act. A notice 
under section 6 of the Act was published on 11 May, 19,61. On 
18 July, 1961 notices under section. 9 of the Act were issued, 
F 
G 
H , 
INDRAl'URI GRIHA NIRMAN V. RAJASTHAN (Ray, C./.) 
6 9 
-' 
A 
63 persons including the predecessor-in-title of the appellant in Civil 
B 
Appeal No. 943 of 1973 filed claims. 
An award under the Act was made on 9 January, 1964. 
On 
9 July, 1964 the award was amended because of certai,n transactions 
of sale of portions of the land. 
· 
Writ Petitions were filed on 23 January, 19}0. The appellants 
challenged the validity of the notifications dated 13 May, 1960 and 
3 May, 1961 issued under sections 4 and 6. of the Act. The appel-
lants also challenged the notices dated 18 July, 1961 under section 9 
of the Act. 
The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of inordinate 
C 
delay. 
The appellants failed on that grouI1P. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The High Court also dealt with the challenge to the land acquisi-
tion proceedings on the ground of discrimination and the further 
plea that the land . was being acquired at negligible price and 
the 
same would be sold at exorbitant price by the Improvement Trust 
to the public. The High Court did not accept any of the grounds on 
the merit~. 
The Attorney General said at the threshold that if the ap?e.llants 
would fail on the ground of delay it was not necessary to go into 
the rest of the contention~ ·in the judgment. 
· 
This Court in the recent decision in Aftatoon & Ors. v. Lt. 
Governor of Delhi & Ors. (11) 
held that if persons allowed the 
Government to complete the acquisition J'roceedings on the basis 
that the notification under section 4 an 
the declaration under 6 
were valid and then . attacked the notification on grounds which were 
available to them at the time when the notification was published it 
would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. 
The facts iii Aftatoon's case 
(supra) 
were · these. 
On 13 
November, 1959 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition 
Act was issued.· Between 1959 and 1961 
objections were filed 
under section SA of the Act. 
On 18 March, 1966 declaration under 
section 6 of the Act was published. In 1970 notices unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.