Urban Improvement Trust vs Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.

4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – To initiate the acquisition proceedings, the State must publish a notice under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act for the owners or any other interested parties to show cause as to why their land should not be acquired – The object of issuing a notice under Section 52(2) prior to a notification under Section 52(1) is to allow the owners and interested parties to put forth their case as to why a land proposed to be acquired should not be acquired or to make representations regarding the amount of compensation – A reading of Section 52(2) shows that the conditions of publication of notice in the official gazette and pasting the same at a conspicuous area of the locality are together considered to be sufficient notice. [Paras 56, 57(b), 57(d)]

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s.52(1) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The validity of the notification u/s.52(1) for the acquisition of the Nangli Kota lands: Held: It is an admitted fact by both the parties that there were no individual notices served upon the owners as required u/s.52(2) nor was the notice of the proposed acquisition pasted on some conspicuous space in the locality where the property was situated – The State Government had only published the notice u/s.52(2) in the official gazette – A reading of s.52(2) shows that the conditions of publication of notice in the official gazette and pasting the same at a conspicuous area of the locality are together considered to be sufficient notice and fulfilment of just one requirement out of the two risked causing prejudice to the respondents herein – What remains to be seen is whether the improper service of notice did in fact deprive the respondents from making their representations and objections to the acquisition proceedings – The documents placed on record show that the seven sons of late ‘RN’ participated in the proceedings before the OSD and were aware that the Nangli Kota lands were proposed to be acquired – Therefore, the participation in the proceedings by the landowners themselves is sufficient evidence that the object of the publication of the notice u/s.52(2) was met – The acquiring authority that is, the State was not required to prove actual notice of the proposal to acquire in this case and the knowledge of the appellants about the acquisition proceedings is equivalent to implied notice to the appellants – Therefore, the non-service of individual notices upon the owners u/s.52(2) cannot be a ground to invalidate the acquisition proceedings. [Paras 57(a), 57(d), 57(e), 57(f), 57(g)]

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – s.52(1) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The validity of the notification u/s.52(1) for the acquisition of the Moongaska lands:

Held: The State did not serve individual notices upon the owners – The notice u/s.52(2) was also not pasted at a conspicuous area of the locality in which the property is situated – The State Government only published the notice in the official gazette – From the documents placed on record, it is found that the representations were made by the legal heirs of two of the original landowners that is the RN and Y – There is no evidence of the participation by the other two original landowners that is, RS and ML or their legal heirs – The appellant Trust or the State Government has also not adduced any evidence whether written or oral that these two landowners and their legal heirs actively participated in the acquisition proceedings and made their objections heard – From the records, it is clear that improper service of notice u/s.52(2) did in fact prejudice the rights of the two original landowners and their legal heirs and they were not provided with an opportunity to be heard – Such factum is sufficient to declare the notification u/s.52(1) for the Moongaska land, invalid. [Paras 58(a), 58(c), 58(e)]

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987 – s.60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Held: After the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to the State of Rajasthan on 24.09.1984, an amendment in the RUI Act was introduced vide the Amending Act, 1987 which provided for the transitory measures for facilitating the application of the Land Acquisition Act to the State of Rajasthan – The legislature enacted Section 60A with a view to address the pending acquisition proceedings which were initiated under the RUI Act – While subsection (4) puts an embargo on the challenge to an acquisition on the ground of non-payment of compensation, it is accompanied with a proviso that the compensation must be paid within six months from 01.08.1987. [Paras 67, 68]

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Whether the compensation was determined and paid lawfully to the respondents:

Held: Since the improper service of notice u/s.52(2) invalidates the notification issued u/s.52(1) of the RUI Act for the Moongaksa land, so the discussion hereby is restricted to the acquisition proceedings for the Nangli Kota lands – The OSD passed an order u/s.53(3) of the RUI Act for settlement of compensation at Rs. 90,000/- in lieu of the acquisition of the Nangli Kota lands – However, the payment of compensation was delayed – There are atleast two inconsistencies in the payment of compensation to the respondents and the procedure of acquisition of the Nangli Kota lands: (i) As per Section 52(7), the possession of the land being acquired cannot be handed over to the appellant Trust till it deposits the compensation amount determined u/s.53 of the RUI Act – However, in the present case, the possession of the Nangli Kota lands was handed over to the appellant Trust long before it deposited the compensation amount with the reference court;

(ii) Even though the parallel litigation on the questions of nature and ownership of the land bearing Survey no. 229 was concluded in 1985, the compensation amount was deposited by the appellant Trust in the reference court only on 31.12.1997 that is after 12 years – The present case is squarely covered by Section 60A(4) as the Nangli Kota lands were already deemed to be vested in the State after the notification under Section 52(1) was published – While sub-section (4) puts an embargo on the challenge to an acquisition on the ground of non-payment of compensation, it is accompanied with a proviso that the compensation must be paid within six months from 01.08.1987 – It is worth noting that neither the State Government nor the appellant Trust deposited the amount towards compensation to be paid to the respondents within a period of 6 months – In fact, there was an inordinate delay of almost 10 years in depositing the compensation amount in the reference court – Further, no reason worth the name has been provided by the State Government and the appellant Trust for such delay – Therefore, in considered view of this Court, the notification under Section 52(1) is liable to be declared invalid on the ground that the compensation was not deposited and paid to the respondents within the timeline specified in Section 60A(4) as well as on the ground that the acquisition process was not fair and in accordance with law – The improper procedure being adopted by the State Government and the appellant Trust when it took possession of the Nangli Kota lands before depositing compensation for the same was in contravention of the mandate of Section 52(7) of the RUI Act. [Paras 60, 63, 66, 71]