M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the Notifications dated 31.03.2008 & 07.09.2009 for acquisition of the land.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submit that respondent issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (in short "the Act") on 24.02.2008. After the aforesaid Notification, notice dated 31st March, 2008 was given to invite objection under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to be "Act of 1894"). The petitioners submitted their objection but without deciding it, Notification under Section 17 and Section 9 of the Act of 1894 were issued. It was in ignorance of the fact that out of various lands sought to be acquired, Khasra No. 348 is of petitioner, Ram Prasad but Notification under Section 4 was issued in the name of Mishraya hence Notification under Section 4 of the Act was not even proper. The respondents thereafter issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act but it was beyond the period of one year thus the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed on that ground itself. It is further stated that after inviting objections under Section 5 of the Act, no order was passed and Notifications under Section 9 and 17 were issued without showing urgency to invoke Section 17(1) of the Act. The aforesaid provisions were invoked only to make acquisition within a period of limitation for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The fact however is that Notification under Section 4 was issued on 24.02.2008 thus, one year expired on 23rd February, 2009 itself and Notifications under Sections 9 and 17 were issued beyond the period provided for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, impugned Notification/orders deserve to be set aside so as the acquisition proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has referred judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Charan Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, reported in, 2007 (3) WLC (Raj.) 139 to show that Section 17(1) and (2) cannot be invoked in ordinary cases but it could be only when there is urgency or emergency so as to invoke provisions of Section 17(1) and (2). In the instant case, no such contingency was existing. The respondents further failed to consider that once objections under Section 5A were called and had been submitted then it cannot be dispensed with in between. If at all the respondents intend to dispense with Section 5A of the Act then there was no need to issue notice to invite objections under the aforesaid provision. Once objections were invited and had been submitted by the petitioners, it should not have been dispensed with by invoking Section 17(4) of the Act. By dispensing with the objection under Section 5A, principles of natural justice have been violated. In those circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court held the acquisition proceedings to be illegal. To support the arguments, reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman Lal (Dead) Through LRS. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in : (2013) 3 SCC 764 has been given.;