NARSINGH DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 19.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner-Narsingh Das (since deceased) represented by his legal representatives, challenging the legality of interim award dated 27.5.99 and the final award dated 27.10.99 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer), Jodhpur under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act of 1894") determining the compensation inter-alia for the writ petitioner's land acquired in public interest for Indian Rayon Industries (P) Limited, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant as set out in the writ petition preferred are that the writ petitioner was recorded Khatedar of the land measuring 3 big has 11 biswas comprising Khasra No.2018 situated in Village Kharia-Khangar of Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur. He applied for conversion of the land use from agriculture to industrial purpose vide application dated 25.11.97. The land was duly converted for industrial use vide order dated 7.1.98 issued by the Prescribed Authority i.e. S.D.O., Jodhpur. According to the writ petitioner, when he was in process of establishing the industrial unit and raise some construction of the building for factory on the land, he was served with a notice dated 20.11.2000 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer informing that his land is being acquired for the respondent Company by way of land acquisition proceedings and an award has already been passed on 27.10.99. It was specifically averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that it is only thereafter he came to know about the said land acquisition proceedings and prior to it he had no knowledge about the proceedings taken in terms of provisions of Section 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 of the Act of 1894 and further that he was never called upon to participate in the land acquisition proceedings. According to the writ petitioner when he inquired about the amount of compensation from the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur, he came to know that despite his land being converted for commercial use, the compensation has been determined by treating the land as agriculture land and therefore, he submitted objections to the concerned authority. He received yet another notice dated 4.7.2001 issued by the Tehsildar, Bhopalgarh informing that for his land measuring 3 bighas 11 biswas, a total compensation of Rs.11,629/- has been determined. The writ petitioner was asked to accept the amount of compensation and handover the possession of the land to the Patwari Halka- Kharia-Khangar. The notice issued as aforesaid, was followed by notices dated 1.8.2001, 14.3.2002, 23.5.2002, 16.12.2002 and 2.9.2003. It was the specific stand taken by the writ petitioner in the writ petition that after the notice dated 2.9.2003, neither he received any further notice nor the possession of the land was handed over by him. The writ petitioner was also not informed that the amount of compensation has been deposited in the District Court. After coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act of 2013"), the writ petitioner filed the writ petition as aforesaid, questioning the legality of the award passed, contending that since neither the possession of the land has been handed over nor the compensation has been paid and therefore, by virtue of provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, the process for acquisition of the land shall deem to have been lapsed and land can be acquired by the Government only by initiating the process of acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. It was further contended that the land of the writ petitioner, a khatedar tenant, could not have been acquired for the Company without his consent and without adhering to the procedure provided under the Act of 1894.

(3.) The writ petition preferred has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine by the order impugned, on the ground of inordinate delay of 15 years in assailing the award. Regarding the possession of the land being not handed over, the learned Single Judge observed that there is no documentary evidence produced by the writ petitioner showing that he continues to be in possession and therefore, the contention raised that the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to be lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, is not tenable.