B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, against the judgment and order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition of the appellant challenging notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act has been dismissed.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case reveal that a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published in the gazette on 23.12.1983, contained in Annx. 5 to this petition, providing for proposed acquisition of the land measuring 296 bighas and 1 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Mauja Kesarpur, district Pali, for public purpose as the land was needed for Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 10.12.1984, providing for acquisition of land measuring 222 bighas and 9 biswas only, including the appellant's land measuring 13 bighas and 5 biswas, as is evident from Annx. 6 to the petition. The appellant had purchased the land in dispute in 1981 and claims that mutation has been made in his favour but Section 9 notice was not issued to the appellant, rather it was served upon the original owner Mr. Shankar Singh on 16.12.1985. The possession of the land was taken after Section 6 declaration by resorting to provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. The appellant filed the writ petition before this Court on 21.6.1985. The appellant had not prayed for interim relief for not dis -possessing him from the land in question, rather he prayed that the respondents be restrained from construction and development of the said land. The appellant could not succeed before the learned Single Judge, hence this appeal.
(3.) HEARD Shri B.L. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Purohit has vehemently argued that Section 4 notification was not given due publicity and the substance thereof was not affixed at conspicous places nor publicity was made by beat of drums and, therefore, the respondents failed to ensure compliance of the mandate of law. There -is no substance in this submission. The total land acquired had been 222 bighas and 9 biswas, which belonged to large number of persons, as is evident from Section 4 notification itself. Had this been so, the other persons could have raised grievance to his effect and it cannot be said that other persons came to know about Section 4 notification and the appellant was the only exception. The appellant had challenged the entire notification, as prayer had been made for quashing the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. His prayer is not limited to the land belonging to him. Such a relief cannot be granted by the Court, particularly, in view of the fact that the persons who had been owners of the lands, subject matter of acquisition, had not challenged the acquisition. The possession of the land was taken in 1984 itself and construction over the same been made long back. Shri Purohit has fairly conceded to this factual aspect.;