URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus SMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 13-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 993 : 2024 INSC 980
Urban Improvement Trust
v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024)
13 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the 
High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the 
writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings 
initiated by the appellant Trust.
Headnotes†
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s.52(2), s.52(7), 
s.60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Condonation of delay in 
filing writ petition – The appellant challenges the inordinate 
delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent, 
whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and 
circumstances of the case:
Held: The courts have consistently held that undue delay in 
approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the 
courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the 
impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the 
delay must be condoned – The right of an individual to vindicate 
and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on 
the grounds of delay and laches – In the instant case, there are 
three instances of procedural irregularity that may prejudice the 
rights of the respondents herein: (1) the notice under Section 52(2) 
of the RUI Act was not served individually to the landowners and 
the same was not pasted at a conspicuous area of the locality 
where the property was situated; (2) the possession was allegedly 
taken by the State Government and handed over to the appellant 
Trust prior to the deposit of compensation in contravention to 
Section 52(7) of the RUI Act; and (3) the compensation in respect 
of the Nangli Kota lands was not paid in terms of the timelines 
* Author
994
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
stipulated in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 60A of the RUI 
Act – These procedural anomalies are glaring and necessitate 
discussion regarding the propriety of the acquisition proceedings 
so as to ensure that the landowners are not dispossessed of 
their property without following due procedure – Therefore, the 
writ petition filed before the High Court, despite the significant 
delay, raised substantial questions regarding the legality of the 
land acquisition proceedings – The alleged patent illegality in 
the acquisition process justify the condonation of delay in this 
exceptional case. [Paras 46, 51, 52, 53, 54]
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s.52(1) – Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification for acquisition u/s.52(1) 
of RUI Act – Publication of Notice:
Held: The provisions of the Section 52(2) are akin to Section 
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – To initiate the acquisition 
proceedings, the State must publish a notice under Section 52(2) 
of the RUI Act for the owners or any other interested parties to 
show cause as to why their land should not be acquired – The 
object of issuing a notice under Section 52(2) prior to a notification 
under Section 52(1) is to allow the owners and interested 
parties to put forth their case as to why a land proposed to be 
acquired should not be acquired or to make representations 
regarding the amount of compensation – A reading of Section 
52(2) shows that the conditions of publication of notice in the 
official gazette and pasting the same at a conspicuous area 
of the locality are together considered to be sufficient notice. 
[Paras 56, 57(b), 57(d)]
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s.52(1) – Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 – The validity of the notification u/s.52(1) 
for the acquisition of the Nangli Kota lands:
Held: It is an admitted fact by both the parties that there were 
no individual notices served upon the owners as required 
u/s.52(2) nor was the notice of the proposed acquisition pasted 
on some conspicuous space in the locality where the property 
was situated – The State Government had only published the 
notice u/s.52(2) in the official gazette – A reading of s.52(2) shows 
that the conditions of publication of notice in the official gazette 
and pasting the same at a conspicuous area of the locality are 
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
995
Urban Improvement Trust v. 
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
together considered to be sufficient notice and fulfilment of just 
one requirement out of the two risked causing prejudice to the 
respondents herein – What remains to be seen is whether the 
improper service o

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