RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus KISHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 27-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
_/ 
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
KISHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 27, 1993 
(KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
B 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: 
Sections 5(A), 6, 17(1), 17(4)-Acquisition of land-Notification dis-
pensing with the enquiiy-Validity of notification-Large extent of land ac-
C 
quired-Existence of superstructures here and there-Whether prevents the 
Government from exercising its power to acquire the land. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Section 48-De-acquisition of land-Communication of tentative D 
decision-Effect of-Possession of land takett--#lhether open to the Govt. to 
withdraw from the acquisition. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition 
Act 1953 was published in the Gazett• for the acquisition of certain lands 
for the benefit of the Rajasthan Housing Board. Another notification was 
issued under S. 17(4) dispensing with the provisions of S. S(A) of the Act. 
A declaration under S.6 of the Act was also issues in respect of that al"l'B. 
The validity of the aforesaid notifications was challenged before the High 
Court by way of writ petitions. The challenge made was mainly on the 
grounds that since the land acquired was not waste or arable land inas-
much as there were houses, huts, cattle sheds etc. on the land, the inquiry 
contemplated under S. 5 (A) could not have been dispensed with; that 
there was no real urgency for dispensing with the Inquiry and that the 
houses and other structures on the land should not have been acquired. 
E 
F 
The Writ Petitions were dismissed by a Singl~ Judge and Special Appeals G 
were preferred to Division Bench. Since the two Judges In the Division 
Bench diferred lo their opinions, the matter was referred to Third Judge. 
The Third Judge recorded bis opinion on the questions, viz., whether It 
was necessary or obligatory for the Government to mention In the notlfica· 
lion Issued under S.17(4) that the land proposed to be acquired was waste 
or arable and whether the non-mention thereof, vitiated the said notlfica· H 
269 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
lions; and ir a small fraction or an arable land proposed to be acquired 
was occupied by buildings like buts kham houses and pucca houses for 
residential purposes and for keeping fodder, cattle rarms, cattle sheds and 
for similar other purposes, was it still permissible to treat the entire land 
as arable land and Issue notification under s. 17(4) read with Section 
B 17(1) or the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act 1953, and the legal conse-
quences thereor. Then the matter went back to the Division Bench which 
observed that the opinion or the Third Judge was not categorical on the 
last question. Therefore, the last question was referred to a Full Bench. By 
a majority view the Full Bench held that inasmuch as there were pucca 
and kutcha houses, cattle-sheds etc. on a fraction or a land proposed to bf. 
C acquired and since the notification was not severable the entire notifica-
tion under s. 17(4) railed. Accordingly, the Full Bench quashed the decla-
ration under s. 6 or the Act. Against this the respondent Board preferred 
.the present appeal. Contending that the matter stood concluded by the 
decision or this Court in State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Dev~ [1986] 4 SCC 251. 
D 
The Writ Petition filed before this Court claimed that since the 
Petitioner Society also rullilled the same public purpose served by the 
Housing Board viz. housing, the Urban Development Minister had recom-
mended that the land allotted to the petitioner. Society be denotified and 
de-acquired and to regularise the scheme or the Society, and that the Chier 
E 
Minister has aecepted the same. The Society thus contended that the 
proceedings were final and its lands could not be acquired. 
F 
Allowing the appeals by the Housing Board and dismissing the Writ 
Petition filed by the Housing Society, this Court, 
HELD : 1. There was material before the government in this case 
upon which it could have and did rorm the requisite opinion that it was a 
case calling for exercise or pow.,· under Section 17 ( 4) or the Rajasthan 
Land Ceiling Act, 1953. The material placed berore the Court disclosed 
G that the government found, on due verification, that there was an acute 
scarcity or land and there was heavy pressure ror constrnction or houses 
for weaker sections and middle income group people; that the Housing 
Board had obtained a loan of Rs.16 crores und

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