PRATAP & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1088 · Decided: 27-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PRATAP & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 1996 
(J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959: Sections 52(1), (2) & (4) 
and 60-A. 
C 
Land Acquisition-Land vested in State Government free from all 
. encumbrances after publication of notification under S.52( 1 }-Subsequently, 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 extended to the State and amendments were 
made to the Rajasthan Urban improvement Act-Held : Neither the amend-
ments nor extension of the Central Act are relevant and of no consequence 
D to the vesting-Even if award is not made within the prescribed period the 
acquisition would not lapse-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss .. 4,6, 11-A, 17 
and 48-Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987-Rajasthan 
Urban Improvement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990. 
Land Acquisition-Scheme-Framing of-Held : Not a condition 
E precental for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act for a public 
purpose or under the Rajas than Urban Improvement Act for the purpose 
improvement or for any other pwpose under the Rajasthan Act. 
F 
The land belonging , to the appellants was acquired by the State 
Government under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improve-
ment Act, 1959. The land in question vested in the State Government 
free from all encumbrances with the publication of the notification under 
Section 52(1) of the Act. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
extended to the State. Subsequently, the State Legislature passed the 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987 and the Rajas-
G than Urban Improvement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990 with a 
view to amending the provisions of the Principal Act and to provide for 
certain transitory and special procedure for the disposal of pending land 
acquisition cases. 
H 
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court challeng-
1088 
-
... 
, ....... 
-
PRATAPv. STATE 
1089 
ing the aforesaid acquisition on the ground that no award had A_ 
been made within two years of the notification under Section 52 of the 
Act; and that with the extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the 
State Act ceased to have any operation and thereafter acquisition 
proceedings were required ·to be taken under the relevant provisions of 
the Central Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence this B 
appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants .it was contended that land could not 
be acquired under Section 52 of the Act unless and until there was a 
scheme for improvement of the urban area under the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD 1.1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to the 
State of Rajasthan only after the land in question had vested in the State 
Government with the publication of the notification under Section 52(1) D 
of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Once the vesting of the 
land in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, was com-
pleted the subsequent extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the 
State and the amendments made by the Rajasthan Urban Improvement 
(Amendment) Act. 1987 and the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amend· E 
ment and Validatfon) Act, 1990 to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement 
Act becomes wholly irrelevant and of no consequence. Neither the 
amendments nor the extension of the Central Act can have the effect, in 
law or otherwise, of divesting the State of ownership of the land which 
bad already been vested in it. (1098-B-C] 
F 
1.2. Once possession bad been taken under Section 17(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act and the land vested in the Government then the 
Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 and 
provisions of Section 11-A are not attracted and, therefore, the acquisi-
tion proceedings would not lapse on failure to make an award within G 
the period prescribed therein. (1098-E-FJ 
1.3. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 60-A of the 
Validating Act are analogous to Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition 
Act and non-compliance with the said provisions will not in anyway H 
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
amount to the divesting of acquisition which has taken place or the 
acquisition proceeding having lapsed. [1099-D] 
B 
.. 
Satendra Prasad . Ja_in v. State of U.P., [1993] 4 SCC 369; P. 
CMinanna v. State o..J.A.P., [1994] 5 SCC 4§6 and Awadh Biha1i Yadav 
v. State of Bihar, [1995] 6 SCC 31, relied on. 
' 
' 
2. Even if there is no scheme prepared or finalise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.