SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition praying inter alia that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Khasra Nos.19,20 and 21 situated in Village Harchandpura, Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara Distt. Alwar wherein the petitioners have their share to the extent of 1/4th, 1/4th and 3/16th respectively be declared illegal. It is further prayed that the award dated 30.01.1988 be declared void and inoperative and that they should not be dispossessed from the land in question. In the alternative, it is also prayed that the land may be allowed to regularise in their favour as has been done in respect of co-sharer of the same Khasra number.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts which have culled out from the petition are :- That the petitioners father Jagat Singh was in possession of land admeasuing 1/4th of 3 bigha 13 biswa in Khasra No.19, 1/4th of 3 biswa 13 biswa in Khasra 20 and 3/16th of 3 bigha 12 biswa of Khasra No.21. He expired on 10.06.1983. Thereupon, the land was mutated in favour of petitioners and copy of mutation of Samwat 2038 opened on 14.05.1981 has been placed on record. The Jamabandi (Khatauni) of Samwat 2047 also shows the petitioners as Khatedar-tenants but it is mentioned that the land is shown under acquisition by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation ( for short 'RIICO'). It is the case of the petitioners that Section 4(1) Notification under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short ' the Act of 1953') was issued on 12.05.1983 by which, it was notified to acquire the land of Khasra Nos.19 and 21 showing it in the name of father of the petitioners Jagat Singh. Khasra No.20 was however, not shown in the name of Jagat Singh. For Khasra No. 20 name of Hariram son of Hardev Gurjar was mentioned. On 13.05.1987, Notification under Section 6 was published and the award was passed on 30.01.1988.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioners has assailed the award on several counts; firstly, it is stated that the Notification under Section 4 had been issued in name of person who had already died prior to the date of issuance and, therefore, the Notification itself was illegal. Secondly, on the day when the Notification had been issued, names of the petitioners were already entered but their names do not reflect in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, they were deprived from raising their objections under Section 5(A) of the Act and it cannot be said that they have been served with a notice within the meaning of the Act of 1953. It is further stated that Notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after a delay of 4 years from the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the delay in issuance of Notification beyond the statutory period of one year itself vitiates the Notification and award based on such a Notification is, therefore, vitiated in law.;