LexYADU NANDAN GARG versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D YADU NANDAN GARG v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. NOVEMBER 1z 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Rajastha11 La11d Acquisition Act, 1953 : Sections 4( 1 )6, 9, 16-f'reliminmy notificatio11 issued-Declaration is- sued subseque11tly after the improveme11t scheme has bee11 fi11alised-Exemp- tio11 given to a nurse1y but not to the person who had purchased the la11d after the 11otification and living there after constiucting a reside11tial house---Swvey nuntber-l!Jentioning of sub-division of the ntain suTV_ey 11un1ber in the notice-Held in all such cases, notificatio11 does not get vitiated. For the 'planned development of Jaipur City' a preliminary notifica- tion under S.4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was pub- lished on October 17, 1963 acc1uiring certain lands. The declaration under S.6 was published on January 7, 1991 after the improvement scheme was E finalised. In the meanwhile appellant had purchased some of the said lands, under a registered sales deed dated July 15, 1970. Therefore, notice was issued under S.9 Appellant filed an application for exemption which was turned down. He also filed an objection to the notice under S.9 regarding Survey No. 265/1. As the exemption application was rejected, he F filed a "Tit petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The Division Bench confirmed the same. Hence this appeal. The appellant contended that in view of the unexplained inordinate delay between the preliminary notification under S.4(1) and the declara- tion under S.6, the notification has to be quashed; that while a nursery G adjacent to the appellant's site was given exemption from the acquisition, the appellant's site on which he had constructed a residential house and living therein was not exempted; and that the survey no, initially mentioned was 265, whereas in the notice under S.9 it was mentioned as 265/1 and therefore, the acc1uisition proceedings were invalid in law as it was not H covered by S.4(1) notification. 710 Y.N.GARGv. STATE 711 Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. It is seen that long after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Act1uisition Act was published in the Gazette, A the appellant had purchased the property and constructed the house thereon. Therefore, as against the State his purchase was not lawful and B it could not be used against the State to clothe it with a colour of title as against the State. It is an encumbrance against the State and when the acquisition was finalised and the possession is taken, the State under Section 16 is entitled to have the possession with absolute title free from all encumbrances. The appellant cannot get any title much less valid title C to the property. (713-C-D] 2. The appellant himself had purchased the property in 1970 long after the acquisition and therefore, he cannot take the ground of unex- plained delay between the date of issuance of notification under section D 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. It is seen that after the publica- tion of the notification under Section 4(1) the improvement scheme was prepared and sent to the Government for finalisation thereof. It has taken, as usual, certain time for approval and after the declaration under Section 6 was duly published in the Gazette. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any inordina~e delay in the issuance of declaration under Section 6 and the valid notification under Section 4 does not become invalid on that accounLdue to inaction on the part of the subordinates. [713-E-F] E F 3. It is true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand Nursery had the benefit of the exemption. The wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the authorities will not confer on others the same benefit nor can Article 14 be pressed into service on the ground of in- vidious discrimination. So also the wrong· mention of Survey nun1ber in notice under Section 9 cannot cast cloud on valid notification issued under G Section 4(1) of the Act. It is enough that main survey number is mentioned in the notification under Section 4 and the details thereof would be supplemented at the appropriate stage. Mention of the sub-division of the main survey number does not vitiate the notification under Section 4(1). (713-G-H, 714-B] H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.· A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5315 of B 1983.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.