URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER versus GORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 520 : 2023 INSC 935
520
CASE DETAILS
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER
v.
GORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.8411 of 2014)
OCTOBER 19, 2023
[HRISHIKESH ROY AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether land acquisition proceedings can be 
declared null and void for failure to give notice u/s.52(2) of the Rajasthan 
Urban Improvement Act, 1959 to the owners who had purchased the land 
two years earlier through registered sale deeds, before the initiation of the 
land acquisition proceedings, even though the name of original khatedaar 
was refl ected in the Revenue records; whether the civil court has jurisdiction 
to grant injunction as s. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 bars 
jurisdiction of civil court in respect of agricultural land; and whether the suit 
for injunction was maintainable without seeking declaration in a civil court.
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s. 52 – Rajasthan 
Tenancy Act, 1955 – s. 207 – Compulsory acquisition of land – 
Requirement of service of notice upon the owners prior to notifi cation 
– Jurisdiction of civil court in respect of the said land – On facts, the 
respondents purchased the land through registered sale deeds, though 
in the Revenue records, the name of original khatedaar-tenure holders 
was refl ected – Two years later, initiation of the land acquisition 
proceedings wherein notices duly issued to the tenure holders and were 
paid compensation – Suit instituted against the appellant-Trust seeking 
permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the Trust from entering or 
acquiring the land without adopting due process of law – Matter reached 
the High Court wherein it was held that the acquisition notifi cation 
was issued without notice to the land owners, thus was null and void; 
and that the suit fi led for injunction was maintainable – Issue arising 
521
as regards whether the land acquisition proceedings could be declared 
null and void for failure to give notice u/s.52(2) to the landowners who 
had purchased the land through registered sale deeds, two years before 
the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings; whether the civil court 
has jurisdiction to grant injunction; and whether the suit for injunction 
was maintainable without seeking declaration in a civil court:
Held: Per Hrishikesh Roy, J: Upholding the judgment of the High 
Court, it was held that the land acquisition proceedings is held to be void ab 
initio for not following the procedure of serving notice; that having regard to 
the limited relief that can be obtained from a revenue court under Tenancy 
Act, 1955, to deny the land losers access to civil court would aggravate the 
injustice, thus, civil court has jurisdiction to grant injunction; and that the 
suit for injunction can be fi led without seeking declaration in a civil court 
[Paras 10, 21, 38, 39 and 41] 
Per Manoj Misra, J: Setting aside the judgment of the High Court 
it was held that if the landowners did not get their names mutated in the 
record of rights, how would the State come to know of their ownership, thus, 
mere non-service of notice, u/s. 52(2) of the 1959 Act, upon non-recorded 
owners, would not render the acquisition notifi cation void; that suit before 
the civil court was barred by s.207 of the 1955 Act; and that the suit as 
framed was not maintainable, not only for not seeking a declaratory relief 
but also for not impleading the State as a party – In view of diff erence of 
opinion, matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for 
referring the matter to a larger Bench – Reference to larger Bench – Land 
acquisition. [Paras 51 and 64]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
In the judgment of Hrishikesh Roy, J. 
Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 662; Firm Seth 
Radha Kishan vs. Municipal Committee (1964) 2 SCR 273 – relied on.
Bhola Shanker v. The District Land Acquisition Offi  cer, Aligarh and 
Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 59; State of Bihar v Dhirendra Kumar (1995) 4 SCC 
229; Shri Saurav Jain v M/s ABP Design & Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 
552 – distinguished.
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER v. GORDHAN 
DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Vidya Devi v. State of H.P (2020) 2 SCC 569; Ahuja Industries Ltd. v. 
State of Karnataka & Others (2003) 5 SCC 365: [2003] 3 SCR 351; Sukh 
Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P (2022) 7 SCC 508; D.B. Basnett v Collector, 
East District, Gangtok, Sikkim (2020) 4 SCC 572; Jag

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