LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 01-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 218 
A 
LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6392 of 2003) 
MARCH 1, 2013. 
[R.M. LODHA AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and 
Validation) Act, 1981: 
s. 5(2) - Validation of certain acquisitions - Notice u/s 
4(5) of principal Act given prior to commencement of 
Ar:nendment Act - Notification u/s 6 of principal Act issued , 
after more than 5 years of the commencement of the · 
D Amenrlment Act - Held: The provision of sub-s. (2) of s.5 of 
Amendment Act leaves no manner of doubt that two years' 
time prescribed for making declaration uls 6 in respect of the 
notice issued uls 4(5) prior to the commencement of the 1981 
Amendment Act is mandatory and permits no departure -
E Therefore, the preliminary notification, which was followed by 
notice uls 4(5) before the commencement of the 1981 
Amendment Act, has lapsed and does not survive since 
declaration uls 6 has been made much beyond the time limit 
prescribed in law - The impugned orders are set aside - It is 
declared that preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 has 
F lapsed and the declaration made on 19.03.1987 is legally 
unsustainable - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - ss. 
4(5) and 6. 
G 
H 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: 
ss. 5-A, 17(1) and 17(4) - Special powers in case of 
urgency - Acquisition of land for construction of bus stand -
After a lapse of 7 years from the date of notification uls 4, 
Notification u/s 6 issued and powers u/ 17(1) read with s/17(4) 
218 
LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. v. 219 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS . 
. invoked dispensing with provision of s. 5-A - Held: Any A 
construction of building (institutional, industrial, residential, 
commercial etc.) takes some time and, therefore, acquisition 
of land for such purpose can always brook delay of few 
months - Ordinarily, invocation of power of urgency by State 
Government for such acquisition may not be legally 
B 
sustainable - In the instant case, a very valuable right 
conferred on the land owner/person interested uls 5-A has 
been taken away without any justification - It is so because 
construction of bus stand would have taken some time - The 
exercise of power by State government u/s 17(1) read withs. c 
17(4) and dispensation of inquiry u/s 5-A cannot be legally 
sustained- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 17(1), 17(4) and 
5-A 
s. 17(1) read withs. 17(4) - Exercise of power under-
Affidavit with regard to - Held: Counter affidavit filed by D 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is not relevant 
as s. 17 confers power of urgency only on the State 
government alone and it is the State government that has to 
justify that the urgency was so imminent that dispensation of 
inquiry u/s 5-A was necessary - Constitution of India, 1950 
E 
- Art. 300-A - Eminent domain - Affidavit. 
In the instant appeal arising out of acquisition of 
appellants' land for construction of a bus stand, the 
questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) 
F 
"Whether invocation of power of urgency and 
dispensation of inquiry u/s 5-A after 7 years of issuance 
of preliminary notification u/s 4 of the 1953 Act are legally 
sustainable?" and (ii) "Whether preliminary notification u/ 
s 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 issued 
G 
on 01.05.1980 has lapsed since declaration u/s 6 of that 
Act was made on 19.03.1987 after the expiry of two years 
· from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land 
Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981?" 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The statutory provisions of compulsory 
acquisition contained in the Rajasthan Land Acquisition 
Act, 1953 (the 1953 Act) are not materially different from 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act). The power 
of urgency which takes away the right to file objections 
B can only be exercised by the State government for such 
public purpose of real urgency which cannot brook delay 
of few weeks or few months. This Court has held that 
the right to file objections u/s 5-A is a substantial right. 
The State government, therefore, has to apply its mind 
C before it invokes its power of urgency and dispensation 
of inquiry u/s 5-A that the compliance of the mandate of 
s. 5-A may lead to precious loss of time which may defeat 
the purpose for which land is sought to be acquired. Any 
construction of building (institution

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.