# RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 7 S.C.R. 192
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4824 of 2013
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajendra-nagar-adarsh-grah-nirman-sahkari-samiti-ltd-v-state-of-rajasthan-ors-29352
- **Pages:** 84

## Headnote

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land by State Government
for setting up of Railway complex - 'Public purpose' - Held:
Under ss. 4 and 6, it is the "appropriate Government" which
is to be satisfied about the 'public purpose' for which the land
0
is to be acquired and which is vested with the responsibilities
contemplated u/ss. 4 and 6 - 'Public purpose' may be
relatable to (i) Union! Central Government, or (ii) State
Government or (iii) a "general public purpose", which is
neither exclusively relatable to Central Government nor fully
E relatable to State Government, but furlhers a common public
purpose relatable both to a Union and a State cause.
ss. 3(ee), 4, and 6 - "Appropriate Government" - Held: If
the purpose of acquisition is exclusively for the Union, then
Union/Central Government will have exclusive jurisdiction to
F acquire the land - If the purpose of acquisition is exclusively
for a State, or for "a general public purpose", then the State
Government concerned will have the exclusive jurisdiction to
acquire the land - In the instant case, though the land was
acquired for Railway complex, but additionally the purpose of
G acquisition would benefit the State generally, as better
transporlation facilities would meet the expectations of public
and private entities having a nexus with the State and, as
such, the purpose for acquisition can certainly be described
as "a general public purpose" - Therefore, the State
H
192
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN
193
SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Government had jurisdiction to acquire the land because it A
duly satisfied the requirement of the term 'appropriate
Government' refe"ed to in ss. 4 and 6 - While acquiring the
land of appellants, State Government has proceeded in due
course of Jaw - As such, appellants cannot be stated to have
been deprived of their lands/property, without the authority of B
law and there has been no violation of appellants' right under
Art. 300A of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.
300A..
The Railways requested the State Government of C
Rajasthan, to provide land "free of cost" for setting up
North-Western Railway Zone Complex at Jaipur. It was
emphasized by the Union Minister for Railways, that the
setting up of the new Railway Zone at Jaipur, would
improve train services to and within the State of
Rajasthan, and thereby, meet the expectations of public
D
and private entities, of the area. Ultimately, the Secretary,
Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan issued
a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
indicating the State Government's desire to acquire 15.50
hectares of land situated in the revenue estate of two
E
villages of district Jaipur. The said notification u/s. 4, was
published on 6.9.1997. The State Government on
13.1.1999 notified its declaration u/s. 6 of the Acquisition
Act, which was published in the State Government
gazette dated 21.1.1999. On 21.3.2001, the Land
F
Acquisition Officer passed an award, determining the
compens~tion payable to land owners. The instant
appeals arose out of the proceedings challenging the
acquisition by the State Government.
The sum and substance of the contentions raised on
G
behalf of the appellants was that since the land was
acquired for setting up a new Railway Zone, the
"appropriate Government", as defined in s.3(ee) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was only the Central
Government which could have issued the s. 4 notification
H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
A dated 19.8.1997, as also the s. 6 declaration dated
13.1.1999, but the said notification and declaration were
issued by the Government of Rajasthan; that the
"appropriate Government" as contemplated u/ss. 16,
17(1), 17(2), 31(3), 40 and 49 could only have been the
B Central Government; and that the nomination of the
'Collector' for all purposes relating to the acquisition and
to carry out the functions contemplated u/ss ss. 5, 5-A,
7, 11, 12, 13, 13-A and 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,659 of 167,225. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39659 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 192
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI
SAMITI LTD.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4824 of 2013)
JULY 01, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land by State Government
for setting up of Railway complex - 'Public purpose' - Held:
Under ss. 4 and 6, it is the "appropriate Government" which
is to be satisfied about the 'public purpose' for which the land
0
is to be acquired and which is vested with the responsibilities
contemplated u/ss. 4 and 6 - 'Public purpose' may be
relatable to (i) Union! Central Government, or (ii) State
Government or (iii) a "general public purpose", which is
neither exclusively relatable to Central Government nor fully
E relatable to State Government, but furlhers a common public
purpose relatable both to a Union and a State cause.
ss. 3(ee), 4, and 6 - "Appropriate Government" - Held: If
the purpose of acquisition is exclusively for the Union, then
Union/Central Government will have exclusive jurisdiction to
F acquire the land - If the purpose of acquisition is exclusively
for a State, or for "a general public purpose", then the State
Government concerned will have the exclusive jurisdiction to
acquire the land - In the instant case, though the land was
acquired for Railway complex, but additionally the purpose of
G acquisition would benefit the State generally, as better
transporlation facilities would meet the expectations of public
and private entities having a nexus with the State and, as
such, the purpose for acquisition can certainly be described
as "a general public purpose" - Therefore, the State
H
192
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN
193
SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Government had jurisdiction to acquire the land because it A
duly satisfied the requirement of the term 'appropriate
Government' refe"ed to in ss. 4 and 6 - While acquiring the
land of appellants, State Government has proceeded in due
course of Jaw - As such, appellants cannot be stated to have
been deprived of their lands/property, without the authority of B
law and there has been no violation of appellants' right under
Art. 300A of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.
300A..
The Railways requested the State Government of C
Rajasthan, to provide land "free of cost" for setting up
North-Western Railway Zone Complex at Jaipur. It was
emphasized by the Union Minister for Railways, that the
setting up of the new Railway Zone at Jaipur, would
improve train services to and within the State of
Rajasthan, and thereby, meet the expectations of public
D
and private entities, of the area. Ultimately, the Secretary,
Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan issued
a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
indicating the State Government's desire to acquire 15.50
hectares of land situated in the revenue estate of two
E
villages of district Jaipur. The said notification u/s. 4, was
published on 6.9.1997. The State Government on
13.1.1999 notified its declaration u/s. 6 of the Acquisition
Act, which was published in the State Government
gazette dated 21.1.1999. On 21.3.2001, the Land
F
Acquisition Officer passed an award, determining the
compens~tion payable to land owners. The instant
appeals arose out of the proceedings challenging the
acquisition by the State Government.
The sum and substance of the contentions raised on
G
behalf of the appellants was that since the land was
acquired for setting up a new Railway Zone, the
"appropriate Government", as defined in s.3(ee) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was only the Central
Government which could have issued the s. 4 notification
H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
A dated 19.8.1997, as also the s. 6 declaration dated
13.1.1999, but the said notification and declaration were
issued by the Government of Rajasthan; that the
"appropriate Government" as contemplated u/ss. 16,
17(1), 17(2), 31(3), 40 and 49 could only have been the
B Central Government; and that the nomination of the
'Collector' for all purposes relating to the acquisition and
to carry out the functions contemplated u/ss ss. 5, 5-A,
7, 11, 12, 13, 13-A and 14 etc., could only have been
ordered by the Central Government and not by the State
c Government and, therefore, the nomination of the
Collector made by the State Government was clearly
beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government; and, as
such, the acquisition proceedings were vitiated.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is the "appropriate Government" alone,
which is vested with the responsibilities contemplated u/
ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and which
is to be satisfied about the 'public purpose' for which the
E land is to be acquired. Accordingly, it is only the
"appropriate Government" which can issue the required
notification expressing the intention to acquire land, and
thereafter, the postulated declaration, after examining the
objections of the persons interested. [Para 19) [217-A-C]
F
1.2 'Public purpose', as has been held by this Court
in Ali Gulshan's* case, may be relatable to the Central
Government, alternatively, it may be relatable to the State
Government. Besides, there is also a third alternative,
namely, a situation wherein the purpose is "a general
G public purpose", which is neither exclusively relatable to
the Central Government nor fully relatable to the State
Government. The third alternative would be a situation,
wherein the cause in question furthers a common public
purpose and is relatable both to a Union and a State
H cause. [Para 23) [227-G-H; 228-A-B]
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN
195
SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
*State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan 1955 SCR 867 = AIR
A
-1955 SC 810 -relied on.
I
Balak & Ors. v. State of'.Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1962
Allahabad 208; Ramdas Thanu Oes_sai & Ors. v. State of
Goa & Ors., 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 241; Mis 1}nsukia Development
8
Corporation Ltd. v. State of Assam & Am. AIR 1961 Assam
133; Sudhansu Sekhar Maity & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal
& Ors., AIR 1972 Calcutta 320- referred to.
1.3 Statutory provisions enacted in terms of Lists I,
II and Ill of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India,
C
regulate, not only the substance of the legislation, but
also modulate the procedure to administer the substance
of the legislation. By the Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1956 (with effect from 1.11.1956), the
legislative competence on the subject of acquisition was
D
jointly vested in Parliament, as well as, the State _,
Legislature through entry 42 (in list Ill of the Seventh
Schedule). Prior. to the amendment, through Entry 33 of
list I, the subject of acquisition of property " ... for the
purposes of the Union ... " was vested in the legislative
E
domain of Parliament and as per Entry 36 in List II,
" ... except for the purposes of the Union ... ", State
-·Legislature had the exclusive jurisdiction to enact law for
acquisition of private lands. The said jurisdiction was,
after the amendment concurrently, shared with
F
Parliament. The said jurisdiction was invoked by
Parliament when it enacted the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. It is not possible to read into entry 42 of list Ill of
the Seventh Schedule, the cumulative effect of erstwhile
Entries 31 and 36 (of Lists I and II, respectively, of the
G
Seventh Schedule). Consequent upon the Constitution
(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, the jurisdictional
limitations on the subject of acquisition would emerge
from a valid legislation made under entry 42 (in list Ill of
the Seventh Schedule). The validity of the Acquisition Act H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
A has not been assailed by the appellants. [Para 32 and 37]
[249-B-C; 251-G-H; 252-A-B, 0-F, G-H]
1.4 Art. 73 of the Constitution vests in the Central
Government executive power, the jurisdiction whereof is
8 exactly the same aJ jurisdiction vested in Parliament to
make laws. The executive power of the Union, therefore,
extends over the subjects on which Parliament has the
power to legislate. Therefore, on a subject regulated by
legislation, executive power has to be exercised in
C consonance with the enacted legislation. The subject
matter under consideration is regulated by the
Acquisition Act, which demarcates the jurisdictional
areas between the Union and the States. Sections 4 and
6 lay down mandatory procedural provisions, which
require to be followed in letter and spirit, in matters
D pertaining to acquisition of private lands. [Para 33-35]
[249-C-D, F-G; 250-C, F-G]
1.5 In terms of ss. 3(ee) of the Acquisition Act, the
authority to acquire land has been divided between the
E Central executive and the State executive. In situations
where an acquisition is entirely "for the purposes of the
Union", s. 3(ee) clearly postulates, that the Union
executive would have the exclusive jurisdiction to
acquire the land. The terminology engaged in s. 3(ee), for
F expressing the area of jurisdiction of the State executive
(in the matter of acquisition of land), is not analogous or
comparable with that engaged while spelling out the
jurisdiction of the Union executive. Noticeably, the words
engaged to express the jurisdiction of the State
executive, are extremely wide, so as to accommodate all
G acquisitions which are not entirely "for purposes of the
Union". This intention of the legislature has been
recorded by using the words " ... in relation to acquisition
of land for any other purposes ... " (i.e., other than " ... for
H
the purpose of the Union ... "). [Para 39] [254-A-E]
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN
197
SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
1.6 An acquisition may not be exclusively for A
purposes relatable to the Union, or entirely for purposes
relatable to a State. The complex and multifarious public
activities which the executive has to cater to may not fall
in the exclusive domain of either the Union or the State.
Causes with duality of purpose, would also fall in the
B
realm of the third purpose i.e., " ... a general public
purpose ... ". Whenever the exclusive Union or State
barrier is transgressed, the purpose could be described
as " ... a general public purpose ... ". In case of the first
contemplated purpose, the Union executive would have c
the absolute and unencumbered jurisdiction, as per the
definition of the expression "appropriate Government" in
s. 3(ee) of the Acquisition Act. For the remaining two
purposes, the State executive would have jurisdiction.
The executive domain of all acquisitions other than those
0
for purposes of the Union, fall in the realm of the State
Government concerned. Under s. 3(ee) of the Acquisition
Act, for all the residuary acquisitions, i.e. situations other
than exclusively " .. Jor the purpose of the Union ... ", have
been vested in the realm of the State Government
concerned. This is exactly the same position which was
E
contemplated by the erstwhile entries 33 and 36 (from
Lists I and II respectively, of the Seventh Schedule). Thus,
the cause and effect of entries 33 of List I and 36 of List
II have b3en juxtaposed into the definition of "appropriate
Government" u/s 3(ee) of the Acquisition Act. Therefore,
if the purpose of acquisition is exclusively for the Union,
then the Union/Central Government will have the
exclusive jurisdiction to acquire the land. If the purpose
F
of acquisition is exclusively for a State, then the State
Government concerned will have the exclusive G
jurisdiction to acquire the land. And if the purpose of
acquisition is, "a general public purpose" (i.e., a purpose
which is neither exclusively relatable to the Central
Government and/or fully relatable to the State
Government), yet again, the concerned State Government
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 7 S.C.R.
A will have the exclusive jurisdiction to acquire the land.
[Para 40-42] [254-F-G; 255-A-B; 255-G-H; 256-A-B, C-E, FG]
1.7 In the instant case, the desire for transfer of land
8
belonging to the State Government, and thereafter, the
desire to furnish land consequent upon its acquisition
"free of cost" to the Railways, leaves no room for any
doubt, that the Railways desired the State of Rajasthan
to contribute land, for the proposed project. In the letter
dated 30.12.1996 addressed by the Union Minister of
C Railways the fact that the setting up of the North-Western
Railways Zone Complex would improve train services in
Rajasthan, which in turn, would benefit the State of
Rajasthan, was particularly highlighted. From the material
on record, it is evident that setting up the North-Western
D Railway Zonal Complex at Jaipur, would lead to better
administration for the Railways, and in that sense it would
serve the purpose of the Union. Additionally, it would
improve train services in Rajasthan and would
accordingly meet the expectations of public and private
E entities of the area. This would serve the purpose of the
State. Therefore, the situation in hand can be described
as one wherein the public purpose is " ... a general public
purpose ... " which is neither exclusively relatable to the
Central Government nor fully relatable to the State
F Government; and, therefore, the State executive would
definitely have the jurisdiction to acquire the subject land.
This court affirms that the State Government had the
jurisdiction. to acquire the subject land, because it duly
satisfied the requirement of the term 'appropriate
G Government' referred to in ss. 4 and 6 of the Acquisition
Act. [Para 44-46] [258-F-H; 259-D-E, F-H; 260-A; 261-C;
262-C-D]
H
State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan 1955 SCR 867 = AIR
1955 SC 810 - relied on.
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN
199
SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
1.8 No procedural lapse has been pointed out A
depicting any irregularity at the hands of the appropriate
authority, either in terms of taking possession of the
acquired land, or in terms of determination of the
compensation payable. This Court further affirms that
while acquiring the land of the appellants, the
B
Government of Rajasthan, has proceed~d in due course
of law. As such, the appellants cannot be stated to have
been deprived of their lands/property, without the
authority of law. Therefore, it can not be said that the
acquisition of the appellants' land has violated the c
appellants' right under Art. 300A of the Constitution. [Para
48] [263-A-E-G]
State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Manohar, 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR
911 = (2005) 2 SCC 126; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai & Ors. 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR
D
388 = (2005) 7 SCC 627 Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram &
Ors. 2001 (2) SCR 980 = (2007) 10 sec 448; and
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. vs. Super Cassette
Industries Ltd. etc. etc. 2008 (9) SCR 165 = (2008) 13 SCC
30 - referred to.
E
2.1 The acquisition in the instant case was made by
the Government of Rajasthan, and therefore, there was
no justification for the consultation of the Department of
Land Resources of the Government of India. Thus,
F
reliance on the provisions of the Government of India
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and/or the
Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules,
1961 in order to assail the acquisition made in the facts
and circumstances of the case by the Government of G
Rajasthan, is wholly misconceived. [Para 53] [270-B-D]
MRF Limited etc. vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors. 2010 (5)
SCR 1081 = (2010) 11 SCC 37 4 - held inapplicable.
2. It is apparent that the land which was left out, and
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 7 S.C.R.
A which falls between the two blocks of land acquired, ·
cannot be stated to have been owned by influential
bureaucrats or police officers, at the time when the
acquisition in question was made. In this view of the
matter, it can not be said that the leaving out the land
B between the two blocks of acquired land, and further
that, the choice of acquisition of the appellants' land to
the exclusion of the land left out of acquisition, was
vitiated for reasons of fraud, mala tides, arbitrariness or
discrimination. [Para 55] [274-G-H; 275-A-B]
c
Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR 733; Col.
A. S. Iyer vs. V. Balasubramanyam, 1980 (1) SCR 1036 =
(1980) 1 SCC 634; E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
1974 (2) SCR 348 = (1974) 4 SCC 3; Menaka Gandhi v.
Union of India, 1978 (2) SCR 621 = (1978) 1 SCC 248;
D Ramana Dayaram Sheffy vs. International Airport Authority
of India, 1979 (3) SCR 1014 = (1979) 3 SCC 489; and Ajay
Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981 (2) SCR 79 = (1981)
1 sec 722 - referred to.
E
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1962 Allahabad 208 referred to
para 25
2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 241
referred to
para 25
AIR 1961 Assam 133
referred to
para 25
F
AIR 1972 Calcutta 320
referred to
para 25
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 911 referred to
para 26
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 referred to
para 26
G
2007 (2) SCR 980
referred to
para 26
2008 (9) SCR 165
referred to
para 26
(1964) 4 SCR 733
referred to
para 54
H
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN
201
SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
2010 (5) SCR 1081
held inapplicable para 52
A
1980 (1) SCR 1036
referred to
para 54
197 4 (2) SCR 348
referred to
para 54
1978 (2) SCR 621
referred to
para 54
B
1979 (3) SCR 1014
referred to
para 54
1981 (2) SCR 79
referred to
para 54
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4824 of 2013.
C
From the Judgment and order dated 05.01.2012 in
SBCWP No. 384/2002, DBCSA No. 1876/2011 of the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
WITH
C.A. No. 4825 of 2013, 4829 of 2013,. 4826 of 2013, 4830
of 2013, 4827 of 2013, 4831 of 2013, 4828 of 2013.
D
A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, Rajeev Dhavan, Pramod Swarup,
Vikas Singh, J.S. Attri, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Rajendra
E
Prasad, Yunus Malik, Naveen Chandra, Sanjeev Agarwal,
Bimlesh Kr. Singh, Pradeep Kr. Jaiswal, Suresh Sharma, Sunil
Malhotra, Abhishek Puri, Rajat Malhotra, Narender Mohan, P.N.
Puri, Mehmood Pracha, Sumit Babbar, Sneha Singh, Naresh
Kumar, Gupreet S. Parwanda, Monika Tyagi, Syed Tanveer
F
Ahmad, S.K. Bajwa, Priyanka Bharihoke, S.N. Terdal, B.
Krishna Prasad, Amit Lubhaya, lrshad Ahmad, Pragati
Neekhra, Balraj Dewan for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The instant common
order will dispose of the following matters:-
G
(i)
Rajendra Nagar Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari
Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil
H
·202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 7 S.C.R.
A
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4722 of 2012);
B
c
D
E
F
(ii)
Yogesh Chand Arora vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4874
of 2012);
(iii)
Durga Devi Dharmarth Trust & Anr. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No. 5041 of 2012);
(iv)
Naresh Chand Arora vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5089
of 2012);
(v)
Madrampura Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No. 5206 of 2012);
(vi)
Yashmeen Abrar vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12072 of 2012);
(vii) Sunita Rathi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21205 of
2012);
(viii) Arjun Nagar Vikas Samiti through its President
Vim/a Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21226 of 2012);
2. Leave granted in all the matters.
3. Insofar as the instant judgment is concerned, Rajendra
Nagar Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of
G Rajasthan & Ors. (i.e., the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 4 722 of 2012 shall be treated as the lead case. The factual
narration recorded herein, shall be based on the pleadings
thereof. However, in situations wherein, during the course of.
hearing, reference has been made to pleadings from other
cases, the same will also be adverted to.
H
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI 203
LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
4. The appellants herein are all land losers. Their lands
A
were acquired for establishing a zonal office complex, and
residential quarters for Railway staff, for the North Western
Railway Zone, at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan.
5. The sequence of facts commencing from the initiation,
and leading to the finalization of the acquisition proceedings,
are of pointed significance, in the present controversy. As such,
all the relevant factual details, are being narrated hereunder,
first of all.
8
6. On 15.11.1996, the Officer on Special Duty, North
C
Western Railway, posted at Jaipur, addressed a
communication to the Commissioner, Jaipur Development
Authority, Jaipur, indicating that 26 bighas of Government land
was available in front of the Getor Jagatpura railway station. It
was pointed out, that the aforesaid land had been allotted to
D
the Scouts & Guides Organization. It was submitted, that the
said land was ideally located, and could be effectively put to
use for establishing the required infrastructure for the North
Western Railway Zone complex, at Jaipur. It was accordingly
requested, that the said Government land be transferred to the
E
Railways. A relevant extract of the aforesaid letter is reproduced
hereunder:-
"As you are aware, the new North-Western Railway Zone
has been set up with headquarters at Jaipur.
The actual requirements of land for setting up of the Zonal
office and Quarters at Jaipur is being worked out which
may take some time, but in any case adequate railway land
is not available at Jaipur for the purpose.
F
G
It is understood that 26 Bighas of land of the State
Government to allotted to Scouts & Guides Organization
is available in front of Getor Jagatpura Railway Station.
This is an ideal location for use by the North-Western
Railway and it .is requested that this land may be
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 7 S.C.R.
A
transferred to Railway early for immediate use. Further
requirements of land will be indicated to the State
Government in due course."
(emphasis is ours)
B The first communication on the record of the case, relating to
the requirement of land for setting up the North Western Railway
Zone Complex, reveals the desire (of the Railways), that vacant
Government land be transferred by the State Government, to
the Railways. At this juncture, one would notice, that there is
C no thought about acquiring land for the Railways.
7. Following the aforesaid communication dated
15.11.1996, the Officer on Special Duty, Nortli Western
Railway, addressed another letter dated 12.12.1996 to the
D Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, depicting
the total requirements of the Railways for setting up the
aforesaid zonal headquarters. The text of the said letter is being
reproduced hereunder:-
E
F
G
H
"ln continuation of this office letter referred above the
appropriate requirement of land for setting up of the zonal
office and staff quarters at Jaipur has been assessed and
about 87 acres of land is considered as necessary for this
purpose.
It is proposed to have the land for the above purpose
at the locations at Getor Jagatpura. At least 40 acres of
land will be required including the 20 bigha for which a
request has already been made for transfer vide this office
letter referred above. For the reasoning 47 acr.es land
nearest to the Jaipur Railway Station in the Prithviraj Nagar
on Jaipur-Ajmer Road will be suitable.
It is therefore requested that 40 acres land including
20 bigha of State Government land now used by scouts
and guides at Getor Jagatpura and 47 acres land in
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH G.RAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI 205
LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Prithviraj Nagar scheme on Jaipur Ajmer Road nearest to
A
Jaipur Railway Station may be acquired and transferred
to Railways.
Necessary plans of both the areas may kindly be made
available to Railways."
B
(emphasis is ours)
In its follow up action, the State Government was informed about
the extent of land required. The Railways sought governmental
land to satisfy its requirement. The process thus suggests, that
the Railways and the State Government, were jointly pursuing
C
the objective. The State Government was requested to acquire
some more land, so as to make up the deficiency, and to
transfer the same to the Railways.
8. Mr: Ram Vilas Paswan, the then Union Minister for
0
.Railways addressed a letter dated 30.12.1996 to Mr. Bhairon
Singh Shekhawat, the then Chief Minister of the State of
Rajasthan, indicating the Union Government's desire, to set up
a zonal complex for the North Western Railways, at Jaipur. The
Railways requested the State Government, to provide the
required land "free of cost". It was emphasized by the Union
E
Minister for Railways, that the setting up of the new Railway
Zone at Jaipur, would improve train services to and within the
State of Rajasthan, and thereby, meet the expectations of public
and private entities, of the area. Relevant extract of the aforesaid
letter is being reproduced hereunder:-
"In order to improve the train services in Rajasthan. meet
F
the expectations of public and private more responsive
administration, the Railways have decided to create a new
Zone, North Western Railway with Zonal Hqrs. Office at
G
Jaipur.
The setting up of the Railway Zonal Hqrs. Office.
would require office accommodation. housing for staff. and
other ancillary facilities. all of which need about 150 to 200
acres of land.
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 7 S.C.R.
'A
May I therefore request you to ask the concerned officials
to identify a suitable piece of land. about 150-200 acres
at Jaipur. and provide the same to the Railways free of
cost for setting up the Zone. This gesture of the State
Government would go a long way in enabling us to make
B
the Zone functional early."
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the aforesaid letter reveals, that the Railway
Ministry's request was for about 150-200 acres of land. The
C land would be used for establishing zonal offices for the North
Western Railway Zone, and also, for raising residential quarters
for Railway staff. The letter indicated, that the gesture of the
State Government to provide land to the Railways "free of cosf',
would go a long way in making the zone functional. If the
D acquired land, was to exclusively serve the purpose of the
Railways, then financial contribution thereto by the State
Government, would be unthinkable. But strangely, the Union
Minister for Railways was expecting the State Government to
provide the required land, even after acquiring it, "free of cost".
E Logically, this would be acceptable, when the State (of
Rajasthan) was to be a joint beneficiary. The incidental benefit
to the State, is apparent from the opening words of the letter.
The Union Minister in his above letter emphasized, that the
proposed project would " ... improve the train services in
F Rajasthan, meet the expectations of public and private ... ;,.
9. On 28.2.1997, the Commissioner, Jaipur Development
Authority, pursuant to the correspondence with the Officer on
Special Duty, North Western Railway, pressed the Secretary,
Department of Transport, Government of Rajasthan, to initiate
G acquisition proceedings in respect of land identified at villages
Bindayaka and Todi Ramjanipura, in tehsil Sanganer of district
Jaipur. Relevant portion of the aforesaid letter is being
reproduced below:-
H
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI 207
LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
"Please peruse the letter dated 12.12.1996 by Officer,
A
North Western Railway Zone, Jaipur. The Railway had
demanded land for Railway Zonal Office and staff quarters.
You have discussed in. this reference with the
Commissioner in the room of Chief Secretary. The land
village Bindayaka and Todi Ramjanipura, Tehsil Sanganer
B
is required by Railway department being near to the
Jagatpura Getor Railway Station.
It would be relevant to acquire the required land by
Transport Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Therefore. the
proceedings of acquisition of 4-39 hectares of land of C
village Bindayaka and 9-91 hectares of Todi Ramjanipura,
Tehsil Sanganer. Jaipur is to be acquired. The description
of the land to be acquired. trace map and six copies of
land record are annexed with the prayer that the acquisition
proceedings be done at your department level for the
D
Railway Department immediately."
(emphasis is ours)
10. On 29.3.1997, the Deputy Secretary, Transport
E
Department, Government of Rajasthan, wrote a letter to the
District Collector, Jaipur, requiring him to furnish details of land,
as also, land records pertaining to villages Bindayaka and Todi
Ramjanipura, which was being considered for acquisition for
the North Western Railway Zonal complex. The text of the
aforesaid letter, is being reproduced hereunder:-
F
"The Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur by
letter no. P9 (295) JDNAcqui. Off./Land Acqui./97/362
dated 20.2.1997 informed this office that Railway
Department vide letter dated 12.12.1996 placed a
G
proposal for the land for Zonal Office in Jaipur and Staff
Quarters. As per proposal land of village Bindayaka and
Todi Ramjanipura. Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur near Getor
Jagatpura Railway Station is to be acquired. In this
H
A
B
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
reference information regarding details of land. trace map
and land record alongwith the process of acquisition and
inspection report of the acquisition officer be sent to this
office."
(emphasis is ours)
11. On 9.5.1997, a communication was addressed by the
Officer on Special Duty, North Western Railway, to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, reminding him of the
request made by the Union Minister for Railways. Relevant
C extract of the said communication dated 9.5.1997, is being set
out hereunder:-
D
E
F
"It had been requested by Hon'ble Minister for Railways.
vide this D.O. letter referred above (copy enclosed). To the
Chief Minister of Rajasthan. to identify a suitable piece of
land about 150-200 acres at Jaipur and to provide the
same to the railways. free of cost for setting up of new
Railway Zone at Jaipur. Action taken in the matter by the
State Government may please be advised, for taking
further necessary action accordingly.
The State Government officials required to be contacted
for pursuing the case may also please be advised so as
to enable me to instruct my officers for expediting the
process of acquisition of land for setting up of facilities for
North Western Railway zone."
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the letter extracted above reveals, that officers of
the Railways establishment were in touch with highest levels of
G governmental functionaries in the State of Rajasthan, and were
seriously soliciting land "free of cost" for establishing the North
Western Railway Zone complex.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid correspondence, the
H
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI 209
LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)
Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan
A
issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, the Acquisition Act),
indicating the State Government's desire to acquire 15.50
hectares of land situated in the revenue estate of villages
Bindayaka and Todi Ramjanipura, in tehsil Sanganer, of district
B
Jaipur. The public purpose depicted therein was, that the
aforesaid land was required to establish a zonal office of the
North Western Railways and for raising residential quarters for
Railway staff. The aforesaid notification was duly published in
the State Government gazette. Importantly, the acquisition of c
land for the project under reference, was being made by the
Transport Department of the Government (of Rajasthan),
presumably because the setting up of the project was aimed
atimproving transport services to and within the State, for the
benefit of public and private entities. In terms of the mandatory
D
requirements of the Acquisition Act, the aforesaid notification
under Section 4, was published on 6.9.1997 in the "Dainik
Navjyoti" and on 7.9.1997 in the "Rajasthan Patrika". The
pleadings of the case bear-out, that publication in the locality
was also made on 10.4.1998.
E
13. Yet again, the Deputy Chief Engineer, North Western
Railway addressed a communication dated 11.6.1998 to the
Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Government of
Rajasthan intimating him, that even though permission had
been received to acquire 69 bighas (17.52 hectares) of land
F
near Getor Jagatpura railway station, yet no further details had
been communicated by the State Government, in respect of the
action taken by it, for acquiring the aforesaid land for the
Railways, after the publication of the notification under Section
4 of the Acquisition Act. The aforesaid factual position, is
G
evident from the letter dated 11.6.1998, which is reproduced
hereunder:-
"In the above subject it is submitted that there is no
information of further proceedings after notification under
H
A
B
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
Section 4 has been published on 19.8.1997. Please,
inform this office immediately after proper proceedings to
acquire land for Railway Zonal Office and staff quarters.
It is pertinent to mention that permission has been received
by this office from Railway Ministry to acquire 69 bighas
(17.52 hectare) land near Getor Jagatpura Railway Station.
Hence inform this office immediately regarding
proceedings to acquire of the above land."
The above communication reveals that the Railways, as well
C as, the State Government were proceeding in the matter in
complete tandem.
14. Objections were invited under Section 5A of the
Acquisition Act from persons interested in the land. Having
0 considered the objections raised by the persons interested, the
Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report to the
Government. Insofar as Rajendra Nagar Adarsh Grah Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (appellant in the Civil Appeals arising out
of SLP (C) no. 4722 of 2012, which is hereinafter referred to
E as, the appellant Samiti) is concerned, the determination was
as under:-
"An application on 8.4.2009 was filed by Shrawan Singh
Khinchi, Hemant Goyal, Prabhu Lal Meena, Sharda
Purohit, Nirmala, Suresh Kumar Sharma, Yogesh Aroda,
F
Naresh Chand Aroda, Ganga Sahay Meena, residents/
members of Madrampura Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti
planning Prakash Nagar and Gopalpura Grih Nirman
S_phakari Samiti planning Jagatppura first (Mayur Vihar)
siating that the tenants of Khasra no. 280, 282, 284 and
G
291 Girijadevi and ~ampal Das Swami sold and handed
over the possession of the land to Madrampura Grih
Nirman Sahakari Samiti and Gopalpura Grih Nirman
Sahakari Samiti in 1981 and received the entire sale
consideration. The societies have allotted the land to the
H
plot holders/members from 1981 to 1983 and most of the
RAJENDRANAGARADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI 211
LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)
members have constructed houses before the acquisition
A
proceedings. The applicants have submitted that the
houses have been constructed before the acquisition
proceedings. Hence if the land is left out of acquisition
being on one side corner only, it will not affect the railway
scheme. The applicants submitted that the tenant Girija
8
Devi and Rampal Das Swami are not interested persons,
therefore, their objections should not be considered and
they should be given 15 days time to file objections.
Objections of the applicants were considered and the
applic.ation dated 8.4.1999 is filed which is after due date
C
5.4.1999. Even then the claim is being decided on merits
in the interest of justice. The applicants have not produced
any documents or evidence in their favour. As it is
determined hereinabove that the society cannot get any
right only on the basis of agreement to sale and similarly
D
the members cannot get any legal right on the basis of
allotment letter issued by society. This matter is purely a
matter between the Khatedar and society and its •
members. The plot holders cannot be considered as
interest persons to get compensation. They can get
E
compensation from the Khatedars. Hence the objection is
rejected.
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the aforesaid determination reveals, that the
F
appellant Samiti had not filed its objections within the
prescribed period of limitation, and as such, its objections
could have been rejected simply because the same were filed
belatedly. Yet the matter was examined on merits. The claims
of the appellant Samiti were found to be unsustainable because
G
the appellant Samiti did not have any right to file objections. In
this behalf it was noticed, that the appellant Samiti had relied
on agreements to sell in respect of the acquired land.
Agreements to sell, it was felt, did not vest any legal right in
the appellant Samiti (on the date of issuance of the notification
H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
A under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act).
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
15. On 19.8.1997, the State Government authorized the
OSD-11 i.e. the Collector, Jaipur, to enter into the land sought
to be acquired.
16. After having dealt with the objections of interested
persons including the appellant Samiti, on the subject of
compensation, it was observed as under:-
'
It was considered as to who should be given the
compensation of the acquired land. The objections filed
before this court makes it clear that certain Khatedar
tenants have transferred their land to the housing societies
or certain other persons and construction has also been
made by such persons. First of all, no such sale agreement
has been filed before this court. Secondly land cannot be
considered to be sold on the basis of agreement to sale.
According to Section 17 of the Registration Act, any
immoveable property of value more than Rs.100/- is
required to be registered compulsorily. Hence any transfer
of possession by unregistered document is not valid.
Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has confirmed this view in
Writ Petition no. 2027/92, 1017/92, 4102/91 by judgment
passed on 8.12.1992. Hence the transfer by way of
agreement to the housing society cannot be recognized.
And subsequent transfer of possession is illegal. It has
been settled in the case of Banwari Lal Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., 1986 (2) WLN 648, that such transfer
of land for non-agricultural purpose is useless. Transfer of
agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is against the
provisions of Section 42A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act
and Section 90A of the Land Revenue Act. Thus any
constructions made by persons other than Khatedars on
the land under acquisition ar.e illegal. Therefore
compensation for the illegal construction is not proper."
(emphasis is ours)
RAJENDRANAGARADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI 213
LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
17. Having rejected the objections raised by the persons
A
interested (including all those at whose behest, the present
proceedings have been initiated before this Court), the State
Government notified its declaration under Section 6 of the
Acquisition Act, in the State Government gazette, expressing
its final determination for acquiring the land in question. The
B
aforesaid declaration dated 13.1.1999 was published in the
State Government gazette dated 21.1.1999.
18. Thereafter, public notices were issued by the Land
Acquisition Officer, intimating all interested persons the intent
C
of the State Government to take possession of the acquired
land. On 21.3.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award, determining the compensation payable to land owners,
whose land was being acquired.
19.