Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.01.1978 in relation to land belonging to temple Shri Ramchandraji of village Deogarh having khasras Nos. 669, 670, 671, 672, 673 and 674 on the ground that though the notification was issued on 18.05.1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) was issued on 07.11.1987 after about 9 years from the date of notification under Section 4. Further no award has yet been passed by the land acquisition officer and, therefore, all the proceedings initiated by issuing notification under Section 4 dt. 18.05.1978 has lapsed. The litigation has chequered history in view of the fact that this writ petition has been filed in the name of temple Shri Ramchandraji through its manager Madanmohan S/o Chimanlalji. The same person Madanmohan filed a writ petition to challenge these very land acquisition proceedings in his own name on 18.02.1988 and the same was registered as SBCWP No. 464/ 1988 and by order of this Court dt. 19.02.1988 the notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents. The respondent No. 3 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pratapgarh submitted the reply to the writ petition on 07.08.1989 wherein a copy of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 18.07.1974 was submitted by the respondent No. 3 and it was submitted that the petitioner Madanmohan has no right to file the writ petition on behalf of the temple as the petitioner's claim was that he is successor of one Chimanlal who became khatedar tenant of the land in dispute by virtue of operation of law whereby the khatedari tenancy rights have been given to the Sikmi Kastkar of the land of Jagirdars of Doli land and that claim of the petitioner Madanmohan was also rejected by the revenue authorities in the proceedings initiated long back before the year 1971. According to respondent No. 3 one Sitaramdas was the Pujari of the temple in question but wrongly the name of Chimanlalji was entered in the revenue record against the land of the temple showing Chimanlalji as Sikmi Kastkar. Sitaramdas challenged the mutation order by which Chimanlalji's name was entered in the revenue record before the Addl. Collector, Chittorgarh. Against the order of the Tehsildar, Pratapgarh dt. 10.12.1967, Sitaramdas's appeal was rejected by the learned Addl. Collector vide order dt. 25.10.1969. Being aggrieved against the said order, Sitaramdas preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, which was allowed on 17.11.1971. Being aggrieved against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 17.11.1971, Chimanlalji preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 17.07.1974 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur as well as Board of Revenue held that the land in question belonging to the temple could not have been entered in the name of Chimanlalji. Faced with this situation, the petitioner Madanmohan submitted an application for amendement of the writ petition No. 464/1988. On this application, no order was passed by this Court. However, the petitioner submitted amended writ petition on 24.05.1988. The petitioner Madanmohan withdrew the writ petition No. 464/1988 on 25.01.1993 after obtaining liberty from this Court to file fresh writ petition. It appears that the petitioner was advised to file writ petition in the name of temple as he could not have maintained the writ petition in his name, therefore, he withdrew the writ petition No. 464/1988 and filed this writ petition.
(3.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner disclosed himself to be the manager of the temple Shri Ramchandraji, Deogarh and has challenged the same land acquisition proceedings, which was initiated by issuing notification of 1987. The grounds are same grounds, which were taken in the earlier writ petition and some more grounds are also added by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The objection of the petitioner which goes to the root of the matter is that land acquisition proceedings have already lapsed as the notification under Section 6 was not published within the period as prescribed by law. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that earlier in the State of Rajasthan, the State Act for land acquisition was applicable, which was known as Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, therefore, notification under Section 4 was issued under the old Act but before any notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 could have been issued, the Land Acquisition Act, 1817 was amended in the year 1984 by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. Subsequently, this Act was adopted by the State of Rajasthan also and within the period prescribed by Section 6 of the Amended Act for publication of notification under Section 6, no notification was published and further no award was passed within the prescribed period of limitation by the land acquisition officer in this matter. The fact that notification under Section 6 or award under the Land Acquisition Act have not been passed in time is not disputed fact. The objection of the respondent No. 3 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is that the petitioner Madanmohan had no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings in any capacity, may it be, in the name of the temple or in capacity as Pujari or as a person interested. The petitioner's oblique motive is apparent from the fact that the petitioner tried to garb the land by showing himself to be the decedent of Sikmi kastkar Chimanlalji and he filed the writ petition No. 464/1988 for getting the land acquisition proceedings quashed so as to get the land for himself. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dt. 25.01.1993 though with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition. Still position remain same that the petitioner is neither the manager of the temple nor has any locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings.;