BAGA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the peti-tioner is that his father Bastiram's land situated in Chak No. 10 BPM in three squares bearing No. 203/404 to 205 404 and 203/4072 to 205/460 shown in the attached plan and filed as Annexure 1 with the writ petition is sought to be acquired.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that no notice as required by S. 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act of 1953 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' of 1953) was issued and published in the Rajasthan Gazetted No notice as required by S. 5(a) of the aforesaid Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was given to, the father of the petitioner and without complying with these two provisions a notice for compulsory acquisition of the land was issued under S. 6 of the Act of 1953 against a dead person because his father has already expired on 20th of December, 1979 and notification under S. 6 was issued on 14-2-1980. The petitioner came to know about these proceedings from the notice of the Tehsildar issued by the Land Acquisition Officer in the name of the deceased. He has therefore, prayed that in spite of the fact that the land is required to be acquired for the construction of a public road, these acquisition proceedings are void issued and deserves to be quashed qua the petitioner because of the non-compliance of the provi-sions of S. 4(1) read with S. 45(4) of the Act as also for non-compliance of the Provisions of S. 5(a) of the aforesaid Act. In this respect Mr. Chaudhary drew my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court render-ed in Dr. Laxmi v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1986 RLW 186 wherein para 20, it has been held that provisions of S. 4(1) of the Act of 1953 are mandatory in character. The provision of S. 45(4) are also mandatory and their non-compliance renders the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof is void.

(3.) My attention was next drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the supreme Court rendered in Khubchand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1074 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that issuance under S. 4(1) of the Act of 1953 is mandatory and if this provision has not been complied with the acquisition proceeding will be void and all proceedings taken in pursuance of these provisions will also be void. My attention was next invited to a single Bench decision of this Court rendered in Bhimaram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1977 WLN (unreport-ed) Cases, 497 wherein it has been held that a declaration under S. 4(1) of the Act must be made and once it is made, a report under S. 5(a) has to be submitted and that can only be legally submitted after giving an opportu-nity to the petitioner to raise objections against the proposed acquisition. In this case no notice under S. 5(a) was given to the petitioner's father and therefore, he had no opportunity to object and notice under S. 6 was issued after his death. The learned Judge has held that the declaration under S. 6 in such circumstances is without proper legal authority, having been issued in disregard of the mandatory requirement of the law and therefore, it deserves to be quashed.