MADAN, J. - (1.) DR. R.S. Gehlot and S.S. Gehlot (petitioners) have filed this writ petition seeking declaration as to their land bearing Khasra Nos. 237/513, 238, 240, 240/514, 241, 242, 243 and 250 measuring 10 bighas & 1 biswa situated in village Shak Sudarshanpura (Tonk Road) Tehsil and District Jaipur that acquisition proceedings under notification dt. 13.5.1960 published in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 6.6.1960 issued under Sec. 4 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short Raj. Act) so also under notification dt. 18.4.1961 published in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 11.5.61 issued under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act stand lapsed by virtue of mandatory provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Central Act) and thereby the respondents be restrained from interfering in possession over their land ibid.
(2.) THE facts having been complexed and complicated at the instance of the petitioners leading to this writ petition are epitomised hereunder with a view to resolve long standing controversy under misconception for their own lapses. Undoubtedly the land in dispute originally stood in the name of Ram Prakash Gehlot (father of the petitioners) vide Ann. 2 and 3600 sq. yards of land having been sold by erstwhile State of Jaipur to said Shri Ramprakash Gehlot for construction of houses has been abadi land vide order/Patta dt. 28.2.1946 (Ann.1) for a sum of Rs. 2295/-. Ramprakash Gehlot died on 28.1.1983, in whose life time, the proceedings for acquiring the land in dispute were initiated by issuing notification on 3.5.1960 under Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act on being published in Raj. Gazette on 6.6.1960 and thereupon a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act by notification was issued on 18.4.1961 and then published in Rajasthan Gazette on 11.5.1961. It is the case of the petitioners as has been averred in their present writ petition that they had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 976/1972 (Ram Prakash and ors. vs. State) (for short, writ of 1972) against the acquisition proceedings and therefore, this Court on 26.5.1972 passed following stay orders (Ann. 3):- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed of the land in question till the decision of the writ petition. It will however be open to the State to take all proceedings in connection with the acquisition of land in question but the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. List this case for hearing with the connected case i.e. S.B. Civil Writ No. 923/72." Second petition for grant of stay (SB Civil Misc. IInd Stay Petition No. 1138/73) was also filed in aforesaid writ petition No. 976/72 wherein this Court after hearing both the parties directed in its order dt. 11.7.72 (Ann.4) the Land Acquisition Officer (for short "LAO") not to pass an award till disposal of that writ petition and liberty was given to him (LAO) to record the evidence if he chooses to do so. The petitioners admitted that the writ of 1972 stood dismissed in default for non-appearance of either of the petitioners or their counsel by order dt. 6.4.79 (Ann. 5). Without disputing the proceedings drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Collector Jaipur (respondent No.3) in their case, the petitioners placing such proceedings drawn from 10.8.61 to 8.7.1998 (Ann.6) have drawn attention of this Court to some of the proceedings of 29.8.1987 and 8.10.1992. It is their case that on 29.8.87 the respondent No.3 drew order sheet that the Director (Law) was informed of their writ petition having been dismissed on 9.6.87 and therefore it has been urged that despite the fact of dismissal of writ of 1972 having come to the notice of the respondent No.3 on 29.8.87 inasmuch as there was no stay order since 6.4.1979 when writ of 1972 had already been dismissed in default, the Jaipur Development Authority (respondent No.2) had been sleeping over these proceedings, the respondent No.3 did not make or pass award, rather he dragged these acquisition proceedings by sending a letter to the Deputy Secretary Urban Development seeking guidance as to the question of the acquisition proceedings being lapsed under Section 11A of the Central Act and in this regard the petitioners referred to proceeding drawn on 8.10.1992. In para 13 of the present writ petition the petitioners specifically admitted by averring. "However, the petitioners had also no knowledge of the dismissal of the writ petition."
(3.) THE petitioners also admitted that they had earlier filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4240/94 (for short "second petition") claiming regularisation of their land in dispute in the light of the decision/the circular dt. 18.2.94 of the State Govt. taken in cases of other land owners like them. THE second writ petition was filed on 23.5.94 also seeking declaration of 14 items under caption JDA and two items under caption Rajasthan Avasan Mandal in item S (1) of circular dt. 18.2.94 as discriminatory and since 23.5.94 that petition continued to be adjourned for admission and on one occasion on 9.1.95 it was dismissed in default but restored to its original number on 5.9.95 in Restoration Application No. 39/95 and then again it was got adjourned many a times at the request of the petitioner's learned counsel and that petition was withdrawn on 22.4.99 by the petitioner' learned counsel Shri G.L. Pareek and so second writ petition also stood dismissed as withdrawn. The present writ petition was filed on 2.9.98. Notice was issued on 3.3.99 to the respondents. On 12.5.99 Shri R.N. Mathur, Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri A.K. Gupta on behalf of respondent No.2 put appearance and they were granted adjournment to file their reply to this writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed reply on 29.7.99 while respondent No.2 presented reply on 3.8.99. Thereafter on 4.8.99 and 17.8.99 the case was listed but adjourned at the request of the parties. However, on 25.8.99 learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents did not appear and Dr. R.S. Gehlot petitioner appeared in person and sought adjournment on the ground of non-availability of his counsel but for the reasons stated in order dt. 25.8.99 the adjournment was declined so the petitioner who appeared in person was called upon to argue the case to which he was ready to argue. Similarly, Shri Girraj Agrawal, Asstt. Commissioner of the JDA, who claimed to be officer in charge in this writ petition, appeared in person and stated that despite due information to the learned counsel for the JDA and his name having been notified in the daily cause list so in his absence, Shri Agrawal was left with no option except to assist this Court and argue the case in person for the respondent No.2. Therefore, this court having no option but to take up the matter in the absence of the advocates for the parties and consequently heard the petitioner and officer in charge for the respondents in person. I have also perused the writ petition, reply thereto and the record produced by Shri Agrawal at the time of hearing. Referring to the provisions contained in Sections 11A and 56 of the Central Act Dr. Gehlot urged that the Central Act was extended to the Rajasthan State for being applied w.e.f. 24.9.84 and the Rajasthan Act stood superseded but the Land Acquisition Rajasthan Amendment Act 1987 upon assent by the President of India stood to have come into force on 3.11.1987 and thereby Section 56 was inserted to the Central Act and on the basis of these provisions, Dr. Gehlot contended that by virtue of sub-Section (4) to Sec. 56 (newly inserted to the Central Act) the respondent No.2 could have made an award in their matter within two years from the date of application of Sec. 56 i.e. 4.1.87 and two years expired on 2.1.1989, and even otherwise, if two years' period is counted from the date 28.8.87 when the respondent No.2 came to have knowledge as to the date 6.4.79 i.e. dismissal of their earlier writ of 1972 wherein the passing of the award was directed to be stayed then it expired on 28.8.89 but till date no award having been made by the respondent No.2, so the entire acquisition proceedings for their acquired land stand lapse by dint of mandatory provisions contained in Sec. 11A of the Central Act. ;