RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD versus NEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 01-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2015) 5 S.C.R. 365 
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD 
v. 
NEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. &ANR. 
Civil Appeal Nos.1527-1536 of 2013 
MAY 1, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - s. 4 -
A 
B 
c 
Acquisition of Land - Of the Khatedars who belonged to 
Scheduled Caste - Objection to acquisition by Housing 
Society claiming to have entered into agreement for sale with 
the Khatedars in respect of the land in question - Objection D 
rejected-Award in favour of the Khatedars- Thereafter the 
Society filed suit against the Khatedars for specific 
performance of the agreement of sale and obtained decree 
in its favour- Reference u/s. 18 by a Khatedar as well as the 
Housing Society -
Civil Court answered the reference E 
determining the compensation@ Rs. 260 per sq. yd. - Single 
Judge of High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 1001-
per sq. yd. - Order of Single Judge affirmed by Division 
Bench of High Court- In addition, Division Bench relying on 
Notification dated 27-10-2005 directed grant of 25% of the F 
developed land to .the Housing Society - On appeal, held: 
The sale in favour of the Society (a juristic person) by the 
Khatedars, being not permissible uls. 42 of Rajasthan 
Tenancy Act was void ab initio - Decree obtained on the basis G 
of the agreement was violative of the mandate of s. 42 of the 
Tenancy Act and thus was a nullity- Therefore, the Housing 
Society was not entitled to compensation - The khatedars 
alone were the rightful claimants - Failure on the part of the 
H 
365 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A Khatedars to take recourse to provisions of s. 175 of the 
Tenancy Act is inconsequential in the facts of the present 
case - The circular dated 27-10-2005 did not confer any right 
eithe~r on the Society or the Khatedars to claim the developed 
land as the same is not applicable in the present case - The 
B determination of compensation @ Rs 1001- per sq. yd. is 
justified - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - ss. 42 and 175 -
Notification dated 27-10-2005- Constitution of India, 1950 
-Art. 341and342. 
C 
Limitation -Award under Land Acquisition Act passed 
in the year 1982 - Reference uls. 18 of the Act made in the 
year 1989- By the society claiming itself to be the purchaser 
of the land - Whether such reference barred by limitation -
0 Held: In view of the conjoint reading of s. 12(2) and 18(2) of 
the Act, the reference was not time barred- Rajasthan Land 
Acquisition Act, 1953- ss. 12(2) and 18(2). 
E 
Words and Phrases- 'Constructive notice' - Meaning 
of- Discussed. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 12(2) of the Rajasthan Land 
Acquisition Act, 1953, requires immediate notice to be 
F given of the award to such of the persons in~erested as 
are not present personally or by their representative/s 
when the award is made. Section 18(2) of the Act of 1953 
requires to file the objections within six weeks from the 
date of the award if the person or the representative was 
G present when the award was made. In other cases, 
within six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector 
under section 12(2) or within six months from the date 
of the award whichever period shall first expire. In the 
H instant case, notice under section 12(2) was issued to 
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD v. NEW PINK CITY 
367 
NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. 
the Society by the Special Officer on 31.12.1988, treating A 
the Society as 'person interested' and informing that an 
award had been passed on 30.11.1982. [Para 13 and 14] 
[382-C-F] 
1.2 In the instant case, it is apparent that the B 
Housing Society had preferred objections and was 
aware of the land acquisition process and determination 
of compensation and has filed objections which stood 
rejected on 4.9.1982. Thus, the constructive knowledge 
of the award is fairly attributable to it when it was so C 
passed. Constructive notice in legal fiction signifies that 
the individual person should know as a reasonable 
person would have. Even if they have no actual 
knowledge of it. Constructive notice means a man ought D 
to have known a fact. A person is said to have notice of a 
fact when he actually knows a fact but for wilful 
abstension from inquiry or search which he ought to 
have made, or gross negligence he would have known 
it. Constructive notice is a notice inferred by law, as E 
distinguished from actual or formal notice; that which is 
held by law to amount to notice.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.