Civil · Reportable judgment

Case Details Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs Gordhan Dass (D) through Lrs. & Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No.8411 of 2014

Bench

Hrishikesh Roy, Manoj Misra

Citation

          [2023] 14 S.C.R. 520 : 2023 INSC 935        

Supreme Court Reports [2023] 14 S.C.R. 520 : 2023 INSC 935

Issue for consideration

Whether land acquisition proceedings can be declared null and void for failure to give notice u/s.52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 to the owners who had purchased the land two years earlier through registered sale deeds, before the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, even though the name of original khatedaar was reflected in the Revenue records; whether the civil court has jurisdiction to grant injunction as s. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 bars jurisdiction of civil court in respect of agricultural land; and whether the suit for injunction was maintainable without seeking declaration in a civil court. Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s. 52 – Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – s. 207 – Compulsory acquisition of land – Requirement of service of notice upon the owners prior to notification – Jurisdiction of civil court in respect of the said land – On facts, the respondents purchased the land through registered sale deeds, though in the Revenue records, the name of original khatedaar-tenure holders was reflected – Two years later, initiation of the land acquisition proceedings wherein notices duly issued to the tenure holders and were paid compensation – Suit instituted against the appellant-Trust seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the Trust from entering or acquiring the land without adopting due process of law – Matter reached the High Court wherein it was held that the acquisition notification was issued without notice to the land owners, thus was null and void; and that the suit filed for injunction was maintainable – Issue arising as regards whether the land acquisition proceedings could be declared null and void for failure to give notice u/s.52(2) to the landowners who had purchased the land through registered sale deeds, two years before the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings; whether the civil court has jurisdiction to grant injunction; and whether the suit for injunction was maintainable without seeking declaration in a civil court: Held: Per Hrishikesh Roy, J: Upholding the judgment of the High Court, it was held that the land acquisition proceedings is held to be void ab initio for not following the procedure of serving notice; that having regard to the limited relief that can be obtained from a revenue court under Tenancy Act, 1955, to deny the land losers access to civil court would aggravate the injustice, thus, civil court has jurisdiction to grant injunction; and that the suit for injunction can be filed without seeking declaration in a civil court [Paras 10, 21, 38, 39 and 41]

Headnote

Per Manoj Misra, J: Setting aside the judgment of the High Court it was held that if the landowners did not get their names mutated in the record of rights, how would the State come to know of their ownership, thus, mere non-service of notice, u/s. 52(2) of the 1959 Act, upon non-recorded owners, would not render the acquisition notification void; that suit before the civil court was barred by s.207 of the 1955 Act; and that the suit as framed was not maintainable, not only for not seeking a declaratory relief but also for not impleading the State as a party – In view of difference of opinion, matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for referring the matter to a larger Bench – Reference to larger Bench – Land acquisition. [Paras 51 and 64]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

In the judgment of Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 662; Firm Seth Radha Kishan vs. Municipal Committee (1964) 2 SCR 273 – relied on. Bhola Shanker v. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 59; State of Bihar v Dhirendra Kumar (1995) 4 SCC 229; Shri Saurav Jain v M/s ABP Design & Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC

552 – distinguished.

Vidya Devi v. State of H.P (2020) 2 SCC 569; Ahuja Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Others (2003) 5 SCC 365: [2003] 3 SCR 351; Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P (2022) 7 SCC 508; D.B. Basnett v Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim (2020) 4 SCC 572; Jagan Singh & Co. v Ludhiana Improvement Trust 2022 SCC OnLine 1144; M.P. Housing Board v Mohd. Shaf (1992)2 SCC 168; Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza (2010) 8 SCC 726; Dewaji v. Ganpatlal, AIR 1969 SC 560; Sree Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannath Rao Pantulu Bahadur Garu v. State of A.P., (1969) 3 SCC 71; Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594; Laxmi Chand v Gram Panchayat Kararia (1996) 7 SCC 218; Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another v Brijesh Reddy and another (2013) 3 SCC 66; Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited (2010) 7 SCC 417; Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao 6 (1973) 1 SCC 500; Urban Improvement Trust v Shri Padmanand AIR 1980 Raj 176; Urban Improvement Trust v Mohan Lal (2010) 1 SCC 512 – referred to.

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v Mc Grath 341 US 123 (1951) – referred to.

Read the full headnote (8 more paragraphs)

Namita Wahi, ‘Property’ in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016); Preeti Sampat, ‘Limits to Absolute Power: Eminent Domain and Right to Land in India’ (2013) 48 Economic and Political Weekly 40; Usha Ramanathan, ‘A Word of Eminent Domain’ in Lyla Mehta(ed), Displaced by Development: Confronting Marginalisation and Gender Injustice. (SAGE 2009); Debjani Bhattacharyya, ‘History of Eminent Domain in Colonial Thought and Legal Practice’ (2015) 50 Economic and Political Weekly 45; Law Commission, ‘Law of Acquisition and Requisitioning of Land’ (Law Com No. 10, 1977); Sambhav Shrivastava et al., ‘Subversion of Due Process for Seeking the Consent of Communities in Land Acquisition and Resultant Land Conflicts’ (Oxfam 2020); Namita Wahi, Ankit Bhatia et al, ‘Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court Cases 1950-2016’(Centre for Policy Research 2017) – referred to. Julius L. Sackman, Russell D Van Brunt, ‘Nichols on Eminent Domain’ vol 1 (3rd edn, Mathew Bender & co, 1959). § 1.11; Tom Allen, The Right to Property in Commonwealth Constitutions (Cambridge University Press 2000) 172 – referred to.

Access to Justice Survey 2015-16’ (Daksh, May 2016) <https://dakshindia.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/Daksh-access-to-justicesurvey.pdf > accessed 19 September 2023 – referred to. In the judgment of Manoj Misra, J.

Ahuja Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Others (2003) 5 SCC 365: [2003] 3 SCR 351; Bhola Shanker v. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 59; Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another v. Brijesh Reddy and another (2013)

3 SCC 66: [2013] 1 SCR 853; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340: [1955] SCR 117; Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta (1979) 3 SCC 83; Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 662; Firm Seth Radha Kishan vs. Municipal Committee (1964) 2 SCR 273; Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs. State of Gujarat (1974) 2 SCC 121: [1974] 3 SCR 427; Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162: [2018]

3 SCR 137; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594: [2008]

5 SCR 331; State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and others (1995) 4 SCC 229: [1995] 3 SCR 857; Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia (1996)

7 SCC 218: [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 774; T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satpal and another (1977) 4 SCC 467: [1978] 1 SCR 742; Shri Saurav Jain & Another Vs. M/s A.B.P. Design & Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 552; Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692: [2019] 1 SCR 717; Bank of Baroda v. Moti Bai (1985) 1 SCC 475: [1985] 2 SCR 784 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

          JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENT

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

Factual Backdrop

1. The challenge here is to the judgment dated 12.1.2010 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SB Civil Regular Second Appeal No.114 of 2004 whereby the High Court upheld the verdict of the first Appellate Court and opined that the acquisition proceeding is null and void since notice was not given to the owners who were in possession but was given to original khatedaars whose names were existing in the revenue record.

2. The respondent Gordhan Dass filed Regular Civil Suit No. 03/04 pr

Full text available to subscribers

Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.

View Subscription Plans →

Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

Case Details Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs Gordhan Dass (D) through Lrs. & Others

Full Judgment Text

More SC civil judgments

Get Legal Help

Enquiry Submitted!