STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus D.R. LAXMI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 12-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
A 
v 
D.R. LAXMI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Section 4( 1 )-Does 11ot e11visage specification of the nature of the land 
as to whether it is waste or arable la11d when the 11otification is published. 
C 
Section 17(4)-11wugh lands situated ill Urban areas, 
Urban Land 
Ceili11g Act recognises the existence of a151icultural lands within urban ag-
gelomeration-Wlien the lands were capable of raising crops, they remain to 
be anzble lands-Hence exercise of power under S.17(4) by the Govemment 
was not bad in law. 
Sections 4(1), 6, 16, 17(2) & 48-Absence of publication of the sub-
stance of the notification in the locality-Wliether re11ders the proceedings 
void--Held, conduct of parties to be considered--After possession was taken, 
the lands stood vested in the State free from all e11cumbra11ces-11ierefore the 
title validly vested i11 the Govemme11t cannot be divested-Moreover deter-
mination of compe11sation attained finality-Also it was not a case to shift 
the date for the detennination of compensation--Court should be loathe to 
quash the notification. 
Co11Stitution of India, 1950 : 
Art. 226-Extraordinmy jurisdictio11-Discretionary powers-Exercise 
of-All relevant factors to be taken i11to pra151natic consideration-Land Ac-
quisition proceedings-Award passed and has become final--Land also 
vested in Govemme11t-Fili11g of writ petition after inordinate delay-In such 
D 
E 
F 
circumstances Cowt should be loathe to quash the notifications. 
G 
lshwarlal Girdharilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat, [1968) 2 SCR 267, 
followed. 
Sanjeevanagar Medical & Health Employees' Co-operative Society v. 
Mohd. Abdul Wahab & Ors., [1996) 3 SCC 600; Satendra Prasad lain v. State H 
221 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
of U.P., (1993] 4 SCC 369 and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. 
B 
Industrial Development & Investment Co. (P) Ltd., C.A. No. 282 of 1989 
decided on 6.9.96, relied on. 
Nutakki Sesharatanam v. Sub-Collector, L.A. Vijayawada, (1992] 1 
sec 114, dissented from. 
Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Jolui & Ors., (1992] 1 SCC 
328, distinguished. 
Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. 17ie State of Utt~r Pradesh & Ors., AIR 
(1967) SC 1081 and M.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi & Ors., [1992] 2 
c sec 168, referred to. 
''Administrative Law" by H.W.R. Wade (7th Edition) pages 342-43 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 
D 1993. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.85 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 602 of 1978. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants. 
Rajinder Sachhar, H.K.Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee and Rajesh Srivastava, 
for the Respondent. 
Ms. Niranjana Singh for Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondent Nos. 
5-6. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench judgment 
of the High Court of Rajasthan made on September 2, 1985 in W.P. No. 
G 602/78. The admitted facts are that the notification under Section 4(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was 
published in the State Gazette on March 23, 1977 acquiring 31.28 acres of 
land for defence purpose. Enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with 
in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and declaration 
under Section 6 was published on April 28, 1976. Possession was taken on 
H May 19, 1977. The award was passed under Section 11 on March 21, 1978. 
STATE v. D.R. IAXMI 
223 
The reference under Section 18 was sought and made in March 1978 to A 
Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation. In September 1978, the 
respondent filed writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the 
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. The 
learned single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench. The 
Division Bench has held that the acquired land is not an arable or waste 
land and, therefore, the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the B 
Act was bad in law. Substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was 
not published in the locality. The notification under Section 4(1) did not 
mention that it was a waste or arable land. On these grounds, the learned 
judges have quashed the notification. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
c 
Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, has 
contended that the view of the High Court is cle

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