- (1.) THIS petition filed in the year 2006 seeks a direction that the award dated 9-7-1981 passed under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (herein after '1953 Act') be declared illegal, be quashed and set aside qua khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar.
(2.) THE main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar has been acquired wrongly inspite of the fact that Tehsildar Tijara vide his report dated 8-6-1981 had disagreed with the report dated 5-6-1981 prepared by the Patwari and held that existing constructions made by the Khatedars were over khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar and not on Khasra No.269. Counsel submits that over looking the report dated 8-6-1981 prepared by the Tehsildar Tijara, the award dated 9-7-1981 has been passed which indicates a gross non application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that in these circumstances the award dated 9-7-1981 in respect of khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar be set aside and the Land Acquisition Officer be directed to re-consider the matter qua khasra No.271 aforesaid in the context of the report dated 8-6-1981 prepared by the Tehsildar Tijara. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a report dated 5-9-2002 based on a site inspection prepared under directions of this court in writ petition No.720/2002, wherein it was found in the year 2002 (after 21 years of the award dated 9-7-1981) the petitioner was in actual possession of Khasra No.271 and has made construction thereon. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent RIICO would submit that the writ petition against the award dated 9-7-1981 ought to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches. He submits that even with reference to the earlier writ petition No.720/2002, also challenging the award dated 9-7-1981 (which was withdrawn on 19-7-2006 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition) it is evident that the challenge to the award was first made after 21 years. Counsel further submits that in any event of the matter the notification under Section 6 of the 1953 Act has not been challenged. It is submitted that notification under Section 6 read with 17 (4) of the 1953 Act declaring the public purpose for the acquisition of land in issue has become conclusive and no challenge to the said notification having been made, a belated challenge to award dated 9-7-1981 is even more misdirected. Counsel further submits that a bare look at the award dated 9-7-1981 indicates that the petitioner duly represented by counsel has not objected to acquisition of land in khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar, but instead only prayed for higher compensation. It is submitted that for the reasons aforesaid the petitioner cannot be allowed to lay a challenge to the award dated 9-7-1981 on any ground whatsoever in this writ petition. With regard to report dated 5-9-2002 prepared under directions of this court in writ petition No.720/2002, counsel for respondent RIICO submits that the report was prepared 21 years after the award dated 9-7-1981, and merely indicates the encroachment of the petitioner and the subsequent encroachment would not have any bearing on validity of the award passed on 9-7-1981. Counsel further submitted that vide order dated 22-1-1990 the Estate Officer on proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (herein after '1964 Act') and after having complied with prescribed procedure in law found him as a trespasser over the land of khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar. No challenge to the order dated 22-1-1990 passed by the Estate Officer under the 1964 Act was made and the order has attained finality. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition including the impugned award. In my considered opinion the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one count. For one, no challenge to the notification dated 4-7-1980 under Section 6 read with 17 (4) of the 1953 Act has been made by the petitioner consequent to which the declaration of public purpose of the acquisition is conclusive. Subsequent proceedings for acquisition under the 1953 Act were only an exercise in the determination of compensation payable to "persons interested", which was a mere arithmetical issue?as there was no issue of competing claims or of apportionment. Even the issue of adequate compensation or apportionment where they arose under the 1953 Act were issues for adjudication by the civil courts and not by a writ court in the first instance. Be as it may a challenge to the award dated 9-7-1981, after a delay of two decades is not sustainable. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Haryana Vs. Dewan Singh [AIR 1996 SC 675]. A perusal of writ petition indicates that it is an admitted position that land of khasra No.271 situated in village Ghatal, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar has been acquired and the acquisition has attained finality. The Khasra No.271 in issue with or without construction stands vested in the state and its successor in interest. No challenge thereto can sustain in a writ petition two decade subsequent to the award. It is not the petitioner's case that compensation qua khasra No.271 was not tendered or paid as required in law. The petitioner's possession subsequent to the award dated 9-7-1981 and possession of the State even earlier on 8-9-1990 was/ is that of a mere trespasser as also held by the Estate Officer in his order dated 22-1-1990 passed under the 1964 Act.
(3.) I therefore find no force in the writ petition, and the same is dismissed.;