M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of all the above numbered writ petitions as they relate to the same notifications u/s 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short the Act) and the award made under Sec. 11 of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioners are recorded as Khatedar tenant of the agricultural land in village Laxamangarh bearing different khata numbers. A notification u/s 4 (1) of the said Act was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 22nd August 1984. THE land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose namely 132 K. V. Grid Sub-station. After the publication of the notification as aforesaid without a declaration u/s 6 of the Act an award Annex. 7 dated 7th April 1986 was made. The said notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act is challenged inter alia on the ground it was not published in accordance with Sec. 4 (5 ). There was non-compliance of Sec. 4 (5) of the State Act. So far as the award is concerned, the challenge is on the ground that it came to be made without a declaration u/s 6 of the Act and unless there was declaration u/s 6 of the Act no award u/s 11 of the Act could have been made. It is also the case of the petitioners that if the aforesaid award is Void then no award can now be made in view of the provisions of Sec. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short the Central Act) which was extended to this State w. e. f. 24th September 1984. Notice was given to the non-petitioners R. S. E. B. as well as to the State Government but reply has only been filed by the R. S. E. B. and no reply has been filed by the State Government. In the reply filed on behalf of the R. S. E. B. it has been mentioned that there was compliance of Sec. 4 (5) of the Act. The question as to whether notification u/s 4 (1) of the State Act was published in accordance with the pro-visions of Sec. 4 (5) of the Act is a question of fact. While the State Govern-ment has not choosen to file any reply, on behalf of the R. S. E. B. the original notification has been shown to me and perusal of which shows that the copies of the notification were endorsed to the Collector with various enclosers with a direction that the copies of the notice may be affixed on the notice board of the Tehsil/gram Panchayat and on conspicuous part of the land sought to be acqired. But even assuming the copies were so endorsed to the Collector, the question is when there was any compliance as required u/s 4 (5) of the Act. There is no material that there has been compliance of Section 4 (5) of the Act. There is no material to hold that notice has been published as required u/s 4 (5) of the Act. The courts have held that if the notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act or for the Central Act is not published as provided therein then the entire acquisition proceedings are without jurisdiction. In this connection reference has been made to the case of Khub Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (l) wherein para 6 it has been held that the provisions of a statute conferring power on the Government to compulsorily acquire land shall be strictly construed. The Supreme Court said that Sec. 4 (1) is to be strictly construed and if it not complied with then the, entire acquisition proceedings shall be void. The aforesaid case was relied by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Laxmi vs. State of Raj. (2) In para 18 the court referred the case of Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and said that the compliance of Sub-section (5) of Sec. 4 of the Act is held to be mandatory. Thus, the mandatory provisions are not complied with, the subsequent proceedings have to be held to be void. A perusal of the relevant provisions of Act will show that unless a declaration that the land is registered for the public purpose u/s 6 of the Act, the Collector has no powers to proceed with acquisition. A look at Sec. 9 will show that only after a declaration u/s 6 is made, the Collector shall cause public notice affixed at convenient place of the land to be taken, as stated therein There is no dispute between the parties that before the award was made on 7th April 1986, notice u/s 9 (1) of the Act was not given to the persons interested and the said award was made. Even the learned counsel for the R. S. E. B. was unable to support the aforesaid award which appears to have been made without complying with the provisions of sec. 4 (1) of the Act and without complying with Sub-section 4 (5) of the Act and without a declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
(3.) IT is really surprising that though earlier award has been made as aforesaid and though the award is held to be illegal and is illegal and this is not disputed by Mr. Rastogi, but still the notification u/s 10 (4) read with s. 6 of the Central Act has been issued and has been published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 17th January 1989. IT has already been stated earlier that a notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act was not in accordance with law and there was non-compliance of Sec. 4 (5) of the Act. The Central Act was amended by the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance 1987 which was replaced by the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 (for short the Rajasthan Amendment), and after sec. 55 in the Central Act Sec. 56 was inserted. Under Sec. 56 (2) of the Central Act, as it stands after the Rajasthan Amendment as aforesaid, where in any proceedings under the state Act pending under the State Act on 24. 9. 1984 and Collector or the court as the case may be on or after the said date taken any action or made any order then such action or order shall be deemed to have been done or taken in accordance with the provisions of suce Act and shall not be liable to be challenged. All the has been said by Sec. 56 (2) of the Central Act as it stands after the Rajasthan Amendment is that if the notification u/s 4 would have been in accordance with the provisions of the State Act it would have been saved. IT has been stated earlier in the instant case that the notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act was not in accordance with the State Act and, therefore, it cannot be said to have been saved by Sec. 56 (4) of the Central Act. It can hardly be disputed that the Central Act is applicable to the State and has been extended to this State on 24th September 1984. Therefore the proceedings for acquisition of land are to be in accordance With the provisions of Central Act. Section 11-A of the Central Act clearly provides that Collector shall make an award within a period of two years of the publication of the declaration u/s 6 and if no award is made within that period the proceedings shall lapse. Under the provisions of Sec. 11-A in a case where said declaration has been published before the land acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1987, the award shall be made within two years, from such commencement. It has already been said earlier that there has been no publication or declaration u/s 6 of the State Act in this case earlier to the extention of Central Act or even thereafter. Publication and declaration u/s 6 is a condition precedent for the Collector to proceed with the acquisition and unless a declaration u/s 6 is not published as aforesaid the award cannot be made. In the instant case even Mr. Rastogi does not dispute that the notice u/s 6 of the Central Act has not been published. Under Sec 11-A of the Act, the award could have been made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declara-tion u/s 6 of the Act. By virtue of Sub-section 4 of Sec. 56 of the Central Act read with Rajasthan Amendment, the period of publication of declaration u/s 6 or the passing of an award was Extended and the same could be published or the award could be made within a period of two years after such commencement. Rajasthan Amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 3rd January 1987 and the period of one year for publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the Act expired on 2nd January 1988 and the period of two years during which the award could be made expired on 2nd January 1988 but no award has been made. Consequently, all the writ petitions allowed and it is hereby declared that notification u/s 4 (1) under the State Act is not in accordance with law. There was non-compliance of sec. 4 (5) of the Act. There was no publication of declaration under Sec. 6 of the State Act or Central Act and the award made under the Act on 7th April 1986 is not in accordance with law. The entire proceedings if any, pending for acquisition of land in dispute stand lapse, and the only way is to start fresh proceedings, with the electricity board shall be free to take in accordance with law. If the Electricity Board if so deems proper it may approach the State Government for necessary action. ;