# Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 980
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-12-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/urban-improvement-trust-v-smt-vidhya-devi-and-ors-37397
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the
High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the
writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings
initiated by the appellant Trust.
Headnotes†
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - s.52(2), s.52(7),
s.60A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Condonation of delay in
filing writ petition - The appellant challenges the inordinate
delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent,
whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and
circumstances of the case:
Held: The courts have consistently held that undue delay in
approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the
courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the
impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the
delay must be condoned - The right of an individual to vindicate
and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on
the grounds of delay and laches - In the instant case, there are
three instances of procedural irregularity that may prejudice the
rights of the respondents herein: (1) the notice under Section 52(2)
of the RUI Act was not served individually to the landowners and
the same was not pasted at a conspicuous area of the locality
where the property was situated; (2) the possession was allegedly
taken by the State Government and handed over to the appellant
Trust prior to the deposit of compensation in contravention to
Section 52(7) of the RUI Act; and (3) the compensation in respect
of the Nangli Kota lands was not paid in terms of the timelines
* Author
994
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
stipulated in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 60A of the RUI
Act - These procedural anomalies are glaring and necessitate
discussion regarding the propriety of the acquisition proceedings
so as to ensure that the landowners are not dispossessed of
their property without following due procedure - Therefore, the
writ petition filed before the High Court, despite the significant
delay, raised substantial questions regarding the legality of the
land acquisition proceedings - The alleged patent illegality in
the acquisition process justify the condonation of delay in this
exceptional case. [Paras 46, 51, 52, 53, 54]
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - s.52(1) - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Notification for acquisition u/s.52(1)
of RUI Act - Publication of Notice:
Held: The provisions of the Section 52(2) are akin to Section
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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
995
Urban Improvement Trust v.
S

## Text

_Characters 0–39,849 of 95,753. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39849 for what follows._

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 993 : 2024 INSC 980
Urban Improvement Trust
v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024)
13 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the
High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the
writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings
initiated by the appellant Trust.
Headnotes†
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - s.52(2), s.52(7),
s.60A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Condonation of delay in
filing writ petition - The appellant challenges the inordinate
delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent,
whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and
circumstances of the case:
Held: The courts have consistently held that undue delay in
approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the
courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the
impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the
delay must be condoned - The right of an individual to vindicate
and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on
the grounds of delay and laches - In the instant case, there are
three instances of procedural irregularity that may prejudice the
rights of the respondents herein: (1) the notice under Section 52(2)
of the RUI Act was not served individually to the landowners and
the same was not pasted at a conspicuous area of the locality
where the property was situated; (2) the possession was allegedly
taken by the State Government and handed over to the appellant
Trust prior to the deposit of compensation in contravention to
Section 52(7) of the RUI Act; and (3) the compensation in respect
of the Nangli Kota lands was not paid in terms of the timelines
* Author
994
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
stipulated in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 60A of the RUI
Act - These procedural anomalies are glaring and necessitate
discussion regarding the propriety of the acquisition proceedings
so as to ensure that the landowners are not dispossessed of
their property without following due procedure - Therefore, the
writ petition filed before the High Court, despite the significant
delay, raised substantial questions regarding the legality of the
land acquisition proceedings - The alleged patent illegality in
the acquisition process justify the condonation of delay in this
exceptional case. [Paras 46, 51, 52, 53, 54]
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - s.52(1) - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Notification for acquisition u/s.52(1)
of RUI Act - Publication of Notice:
Held: The provisions of the Section 52(2) are akin to Section
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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
995
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
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)]
996
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
997
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
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]
Case Law Cited
Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2020] 1 SCR 749 :
(2020) 2 SCC 569; Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh
[2022] 2 SCR 1041 : (2022) 7 SCC 508; Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service
[1969] 1 SCR 808; D.B. Basnett (D) through LRs v. Collector,
East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Another [2020] 4 SCR 513 :
(2020) 4 SCC 572; Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram [2024]
9 SCR 443 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2598; N. Padmamma v.
S. Ramakrishna Reddy [2008] 9 SCR 535 : (2008) 15 SCC
517 - relied on.
Pratap v. State of Rajasthan [1996] 2 SCR 1088 : (1996) 3
SCC 1; Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition CMDA v. J.
Sivaprakasam and Ors. [2010] 15 SCR 491 : (2011) 1 SCC 330;
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2022] 19 SCR
757 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408; Kolkata Municipal Corporation
& Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. [2024] 5 SCR 831 : 2024
998
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCC OnLine SC 968; Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State
of Maharashtra [1974] 2 SCR 216 : (1974) 1 SCC 317; Ahuja
Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Others [2003] 3 SCR 351 :
(2003) 57 SCC 365; Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan
Dass (D.) through LRs. & Others [2023] 14 SCR 520 : (2024) 3
SCC 250 - referred to.
List of Acts
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959; Rajasthan Urban
Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987; Evidence Act, 1872; Land
Acquisition Act, 1894; Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Inordinate delay in filing writ petitions; Fundamental Rights; Delay;
Laches; Right to property; Protection of property; Compensation;
Deposit of compensation; Acquisition proceedings; Legality of
acquisition proceedings; Condonation of delay; Notification of
acquisition; Compulsory acquisition of land; Notice; Service of
notice; Publication of notice; Implied notice; Section 60A(4) of
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959; Section 52 of Rajasthan
Urban Improvement Act, 1959.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29-10-2009 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW No. 669 of 1999
and SBCWP No. 2171 of 1998
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv., R. Gopalakrishnan, Raghav
Sharma, Vaibhav Dwivedi, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Parmod Kumar
Vishnoi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., S. K. Verma, Milind Kumar, Swadeep
Singh Hora, Manish Kumar Choudhary, Ashutosh Kumar, Ms.
Namita Choudhary, Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Ms. Shefali Choudhary,
Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
999
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A. FACTUAL MATRIX .....................................................
2
B. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT ............
14
C. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS .......
28
D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .....................................
34
E.
ANALYSIS ...............................................................
35
(i)
On the question of delay in filing the writ petitions before
the High Court ........................................................
35
(ii)
On the validity of the notification for acquisition under
Section 52(1) ........................................................
40
(iii)
On the question of whether the compensation was
determined and paid lawfully to the respondents ..........
48
F.
CONCLUSION ...........................................................
57
1.
Leave granted.
2.
Since the question of law involved in all the captioned appeals is the
same, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being
disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3.
The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 29.10.2009
in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 669/1999 in Civil Writ Petition No.
2171/1998 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 673/1999 in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No, 2204/1998 respectively whereby the High Court
allowed the writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition
proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust.
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1000
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4.
The Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, issued a notice under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban
Improvement Act, 1959 (the "RUI Act"), published in the official gazette
on 01.07.1976, to one Ram Narain, proposing to acquire land bearing
Survey no.229 measuring 2 bighas & 2 biswas and Survey no.229/
287 measuring 2 bighas & 18 biswas situated in Village Nangli Kota,
Tehsil & District Alwar (the "Nangli Kota lands"). These parcels
of land were owned and possessed by Yogesh Chandra Goyal,
Radheyshyam Goyal, Manohar Lal, Krishan Murari, Omprakash
Goyal, Suresh Chandra Goyal and Ashok Kumar Goyal, the sons
of Ram Narain as well as Kamla and Kesar Bai, the daughters of
Ram Narain.
5.
The appellant and the State Government also sought to acquire the
land bearing Survey no. 141 measuring 3 bighas and 9 biswas situated
in Village Moongaska, Tehsil and District Alwar (the "Moongaska
land"), owned and possessed by Ram Narain, Radheyshyam,
Manohar Lal and Yogesh Chandra Goyal.
6.
Ram Narain was the khatedar of the Nangli Kota and Moongaskar
parcels of land. He passed away in 1973. The Nangli Kota land
was inherited by his seven sons and two daughters. As regards
the Moongaska land, the same was purchased on 25.07.1966 by
four individuals jointly by way of different sale deeds. Ram Narain's
portion of the Moongaska land was inherited by his seven sons and
two daughters after his demise. However, the names of the two
daughters were not included in the list of legal heirs submitted by
the seven sons of late Ram Narain and did not become a part of
the mutation records until much later on 22.03.1985.
Acquisition proceedings for the Nangli Kota lands
7.
The acquisition proceedings for the Nangli Kota lands came to be
initiated on 01.07.1976 when the Urban Development & Housing
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a notification
under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act. Accordingly, Ram Narain was
informed about the intention to acquire the Nangli Kota lands.
8.
In response to the said notice, the legal heirs of late Ram Narain
that is, his seven sons, appeared before the Officer on Special Duty,
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1001
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
Urban Improvement Trust (the "OSD") from time to time and sought
time to submit proof regarding their ownership of the said land.
9.
On 28.04.1977, the OSD sent a letter to the State Government
under Section 52(3) of the RUI Act recommending for issuance of
notification under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act.
10. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification under Section
52(1) of the RUI Act on 16.06.1977 and the same was published in
the official gazette on 23.06.1977 showing the names of all seven
sons of late Ram Narain. In such circumstances, as per the subsections (1) and (4) of Section 52, the said lands vested completely,
free from all encumbrances, in the State Government.
11. On 06.06.1980, the respondents submitted a statement of admission
agreeing to receive compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- for the
acquisition of the Nangli Kota lands. The OSD issued an order
dated 01.07.1980 under Section 53(3) of the RUI Act for settlement
of compensation amount at Rs. 90,000/- in respect of the Nangli
Kota lands.
12. In the meantime, the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer sent a letter
dated 22.03.1980 to the appellant Trust apprising them of the ongoing
litigation before the Revenue Appellate Authority with respect to the
land bearing Survey no. 229 and instructed the appellant Trust not to
deposit the compensation amount till the final decision of the appeal.
13. According to the appellant Trust, the memo of handing over of the
possession of the Nangli Kota lands under Section 52(5) of the RUI
Act was signed by all seven sons of late Ram Narain on 23.10.1980
and the subject land was handed over to the State Government by
way of voluntary surrender. However, the respondents maintain that
possession was not handed over to the State Government either
voluntarily or forcibly. No record of possession of the subject land
being taken by the OSD has been maintained in the note sheet of
the OSD.
14. On 15.01.1981, the possession of the Nangli Kota lands was
handed over to the appellant Trust under Section 52(7) of the RUI
Act by the State Government. Thereafter, the said lands came to
be mutated in the revenue records in favour of the appellant Trust
on 15.06.1981.
1002
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
15. The appellant Trust, on 31.12.1997,made a reference before the
court of the Senior Civil Judge, Alwar in which an amount of Rs.
2,72,714/- was deposited i.e., Rs. 90,000/- along with 12% interest
p.a. from 15.01.1981 to 15.12.1997.
16. A notice was issued by the reference court to the respondents to
collect the amount towards compensation. After receiving the said
notice, the respondents challenged the acquisition proceedings
before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 2171/1998 on
the ground that since no award was passed within a period of two
years, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed.
17. A single judge of the High Court vide order dated 13.04.1999 rejected
the writ petition holding that in view of Section 60A(4) introduced by
the Amending Act, 1987, any land having stoodvested in the State
government prior to the 01.08.1987, the acquisition of the same cannot
be challenged on the ground that no amount of compensation was
deposited and paid to the landowners in accordance with Section
3A and Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
18. After the above referred order, the Nangli Kota lands came to be
mutated in the name of the appellant Trust.
Proceedings before the Revenue Authorities regarding ownership
of the land bearing Survey no. 229
19. The Tehsildar, Alwar presented an application before the Court of
Sub-divisional Officer, Alwar (the "SDO") on 30.11.1968 for correction
of entries under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in
respect of the land bearing Survey no. 229 (one of the parcels of land
constituting the Nangli Kota lands). It was contended by the State
Government that since the area under the said land was "Banjar
Kadim" that is, it was never under cultivation, therefore, it was wrongly
entered into the name of the predecessors of the respondents.
20. After a period of four years, the SDO rejected the application of the
Tehsildar, Alwar on 28.03.1972 and held that the land bearing Survey
no. 229 was "Abadi" land that is, the land was supposed to be used
for residential purposes and was outside the purview of agricultural
or commercial land.
21. Aggrieved by the order of the SDO, the Tehsildar, Alwar filed an
appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, which was
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1003
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
allowed on 06.07.1977, and the land was declared to be "siwaichak"
land or government land available for allotment for agricultural
purpose.
22. The appellant Trust addressed two letters dated 02.12.1980 and
05.01.1981 respectively to the Tehsildar, Alwar stating that the
land bearing Survey no. 229 already stood vested with the State
Government after the issuance of the notification under Section
52(1). It was further informed to the Tehsildar that asper Jamabandi
Khatuni no. 37/ 20 the said land was shown running under the name
of Ram Narain and only the compensation amount remained to be
paid by the appellant Trust. Further, the appellant Trust requested the
office of the Tehsildar to ascertain whether the nature of the subject
land was determined to be 'siwaichak' (government land) or was in
the name of Yogesh Chandra Goyal. However, the documents put
on the record before us show no communication from the Tehsildar,
Alwar or any official of the State Government to the appellant Trust
informing about the status of the proceedings.
23. The respondents filed a revision application before the Board of
Revenue, Ajmer against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority.
The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 30.12.1983 set aside the
order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and allowed the revision
application of the respondents.
24. Pursuant to the order of the Board of Revenue, the land bearing
Survey no. 229 was mutated in the name of the respondents that
is, the seven sons of late Ram Narain. The two daughters of Ram
Narain also got their names substituted in the mutation records in
respect of the said land.
25. Thereafter, the appellant Trust filed a writ petition bearing number
S.B. C.W.P. No. 1223/1985 before the High Court praying for setting
aside of the order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that the
appellant Trust was not impleaded in the proceeding therein despite
the transfer of possession of the land bearing Survey no. 229 to it
in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings initiated on 01.07.1976.
The single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the
grounds that: (1) the appellant Trust should have sought a further relief
of decree of possession of the land in addition to a declaratory relief,
which was not done in the instant case; and (2) it was incumbent
1004
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
upon the State Government to have informed the Board of Revenue
that the possession of the subject land was handed over to the
appellant Trust, by giving an application under Order 22 Rule 10A
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as this was a fact that was
within the special knowledge of the State Government. It could not
come to the knowledge of the respondents that the land had been
transferred by the State to the appellant Trust and therefore, the
respondents could not be held liable for not impleading the appellant
in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue.
26. The appellant Trust, aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the
single judge, filed an appeal in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 20/2012.
The division bench of the High Court in its order dated 01.12.2014
observed that the appellant Trust had only reiterated the submissions
made before the single judge. The said submissions were considered
at length by the single judge and therefore, did not warrant any
interference from the division bench. Consequently, the appeal was
held to be devoid of merits and was accordingly dismissed.
27. The appellant Trust filed a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP
Civil Diary No. 29045/2018 before this Court, which is still pending
adjudication.
28. In the meantime, the State Government issued a notification dated
07.01.1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
respect of the land bearing Survey no. 229, which was published in
the official gazette on 03.09.1990. The purpose of the acquisition
under the said notification was same as the purposes set out in the
notification dated 16.06.1977 under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act.
However, the notification under Section 4 was not followed by a
notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Acquisition proceedings for the Moongaska land
29. The acquisition proceedings for the Moongaska land were initiated
on 01.07.1976 when the Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a notification under Section
52(2) of the RUI Act.Late Ram Narain was informed of the same
by way of a notice. The subject land was individually purchased by
Ram Narain, Radhey Shyam Goyal, Yogesh Chandra Goyal and
Manohar Lal, however, the notice did not clearly specify as to from
whose portion of land, the acquisition was sought to be done.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1005
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
30. In response to the said notice, the legal heirs of late Ram Narain
that is, his seven sons appeared before the Officer on Special
Duty, Urban Improvement Trust (the "OSD") from time to time
and sought time to submit proof regarding their ownership of the
said land.
31. On 28.04.1977, the OSD sent a letter to the State Government under
Section 52(3) of the RUI Act for issuing notification under Section
52(1) of the RUI Act.
32. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification under Section
52(1) of the RUI Act on 16.06.1977 and the same was published in
the official gazette on 23.06.1977 showing the names of late Ram
Narain, Radhey Shyam, Yogesh Chandra Goyal and Manohar Lal,
being the landowners. In such circumstances, as per sub-sections
(1) and (4) of Section 52, the said lands vested completely, free from
all encumbrances, in the State Government.
33. The order of the OSD dated 25.09.1978 passed under Section 52(3)
of the RUI Act recorded that the amount of compensation could not
be determined by way of a mutual agreement, therefore, a reference
under Section 53(4) of the RUI Act was made to the Collector, Alwar
on 26.08.1982.
34. The OSD wrote a letter dated 29.05.1982 asking the respondents
to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the Moongaska
land under Section 52(5) of the RUI Act within 30 days failing which,
the possession would be taken over by force under Section 52(6)
of the RUI Act. On 16.07.1982, the possession of the said land
was taken over by the State Government under Section 52(6) of
the RUI Act. However, the respondents maintain that no actual or
physical possession of the subject land was ever taken by the State
Government. Further, the payment of compensation by the appellant
Trust was condition precedent for transferring possession of the
subject land to it, yet the same was not done in contravention of the
provisions of the RUI Act.
35. On 22.07.1982, the possession was handed over to the appellant
Trust by the State Government under Section 52(7) of the RUI Act.
36. By order dated 17.01.1988 passed by the City Magistrate, Alwar in
compliance of Section 60A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement
(Amendment) Act, 1987 (the "Amending Act, 1987"), the total amount
1006
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
towards compensation was fixed at Rs. 27,600/-. The appellant
Trust was liable to pay compensation to the extent of 80% of the
total compensation decided, which was to be distributed amongst
Radhey Shyam, Yogesh Chandra Goyal and Manohar Lal. A notice
was issued to the respondents by the City Magistrate, Alwar on
27.01.1988, to collect the 80% compensation amount by 30.01.1988.
A messenger from the appellant Trust also went to the residence
of the respondents on 28.01.1988 to hand over the compensation
amount but the respondents declined to receive the same on the
grounds that compensation for the Moongaska land was supposed
to be computed in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
which was not done in the instant case and that no separate
apportionment of the amount towards compensation was done for
different owners.
37. The respondents challenged the legality and validity of the
acquisition proceedings before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition no. 2204/1998 on the ground that since no compensation
had been paid to the respondents, the acquisition proceedings
stood lapsed. A single judge of the High Court vide order dated
13.04.1990 rejected the writ petition holding that no fault could
be found with the final notification which was published in 1977
and having regard to the provisions of Section 60A(4) introduced
by the Amending Act, 1987, the proceedings cannot be interfered
with merely on the ground that compensation was not paid to
the respondents. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the
respondents to collect the amount towards compensation if they
had not been paid yet.
38. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar wrote a
letter dated 11.08.1999 to Vinod Kumar Goyal and other respondents
to collect the compensation amount otherwise, the same would be
deposited in court through reference. After the order passed by the
single judge, the Moongaska land was mutated in favour of the
appellant Trust.
Impugned judgment of the High Court
39. A division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
respondents herein on three grounds. First,there was no substantial
delay in filing of the writ petitions by the landowners.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1007
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
40. Secondly, it was held that Section 52(2) mandatorily required that
individual notices be served on the landowners so that each owner
would be in a position to lodge objections against the intended
acquisition. It was also held that issue of individual notices under
Section 52(2) is condition precedent to the issuance of notification
under Section 52(1). As the notices under Section 52(2) were not
served properly in accordance with the provisions of the said section
in connection with both the Nangli Kota lands and Moongaska land,
the notification under Section 52(1) was liable to be quashed.
41. Thirdly, the appellant herein and the State Government had failed
to determine the amount towards compensation in respect of the
Moongaska land in accordance with Section 60A of RUI Act as
introduced by the Amending Act, 1987.
B.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT
42. As regards the Nangli Kota lands, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, the
learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted as follows:
a)
Ms. Dave addressed herself mainly on two issues: (1) Whether
the appellant fully complied with the mandatory requirements as
laid in Section 52 of the RUI Act for the purpose of acquisition of
the Nangli Kota lands and whether the acquisition proceedings
initiated vide the notification dated 16.06.1977 could have been
declared void?; and (2) Whether the appellant was required to
pay Rs. 90,000/- towards compensation for the acquisition of
the Nangli Kota lands?
b)
As regards the first issue, the learned senior counsel submitted
that the appellant issued a notification dated 01.07.1976
under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act to Ram Narain proposing
to acquire the Nangli Kota lands. The said notice was also
published in the official gazette. The learned senior counsel
fairly conceded that on 01.07.1976, Ram Narain was dead
and gone.
c)
In response to the said notice, the legal heirs of Ram Narain
that is, his seven sons appeared before the Officer on Special
Duty (OSD) and sought time to place on record the proof of
their ownership of the Nangli Kota lands. The respondents
submitted various representations in respect of the proposed
1008
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
acquisition proceedings vide letters dated 30.10.1976,
01.11.1976, 30.12.1976, 17.01.1977, 07.02.1977, 24.02.1977
and 10.03.1977. However, the respondents never apprised the
OSD that there was a litigation pending between them and the
state government regarding the nature and ownership of one
parcel of the Nangli Kota lands bearing Survey no. 229. This,
according to Ms. Dave, was a willful concealment of facts on
part of the respondents.
d)
On 28.04.1977, the OSD sent a letter to the State Government
recommending for the issuance of a notification under Section
52(1) of the RUI Act for acquisition of the Nangli Kota lands.
e)
The State Government, on 16.06.1977 issued a notification
under Section 52(1) which was published in the official gazette
on 23.06.1977. The learned counsel has submitted that since
the said notice showed the names of all the seven sons of late
Ram Narain, the notification under Section 52(1) was valid as
per the provisions of the RUI Act.
f)
The learned counsel relied on this Court's judgment in Pratap
v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 1 to submit
that after the issuance of the notification under Section 52(1),
the land vested completely in the State Government free from
all encumbrances, as per sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 52.
g)
Further, the respondents were aware of the proposed acquisition
proceedings and appeared before the OSD who heard them
at every stage of the proceedings. This is substantiated by the
fact that the respondents sought time on multiple occasions to
produce proof of their ownership of the Nangli Kota lands. The
respondents also had the benefit of legal expertise and guidance
all throughout the acquisition proceedings which is evident
from the power of attorney or vakalatnama placed on record
on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, it could not be said
that the respondents being laymen had no proper knowledge
of the legal implications involved in the acquisition process.
h)
The learned counsel relied on this Court's judgment in Special
Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition CMDA v. J. Sivaprakasam
and Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 330 to submit that there
was no requirement on the part of the acquiring authority to
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
1009
Urban Improvement Trust v.
Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
prove actual service of notice of proposal to acquire land, on
the person whose land is sought to be acquired. The purpose
of notice is to make the owner(s) or interested parties aware
about the proposed acquisition and therefore, such knowledge
can also be inferred by way of implied or constructive notice.
i)
The notification issued under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act
contained names of all the seven sons of late Ram Narain
and the same was issued after the respondents had appeared
before the OSD. Therefore, the purpose of issuing the notice
under Section 52(2) notice was achieved when all the interested
parties appeared before the OSD and no individual service of
notice or pasting of the notice at a conspicuous place of the
locality was required. The learned senior counsel submitted that
the High Court erred in holding the notice to be invalid taking
a hyper technical view.
j)
There is a presumption as per illustration (e) of Section 114
of the Evidence Act, 1872 that the notification under Section
52(1) was in conformity with the provisions of the RUI Act. Such
presumption has not been dislodged by the respondents as no
specific plea has been taken by them in respect of: (a) lack of
power/authority of the person issuing the notification; and (b) that
the procedure prescribed has not been followed in entirety,
that is, no notice at all was issued to and served on any of the
owners. Moreover, once the respondents participated regularly
in the acquisition proceedings before the OSD and also handed
over the possession of the lands proposed to be acquired on
23.10.1980, no question of argument of non-compliance of the
provisions of the RUI Act could have been accepted.
k)
Further, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High
Court in the year 1998. There was an inordinate delay of 21
years in challenging the acquisition proceedings which were
initiated in the year 1976. The High Court erred in holding
that the delay in approaching the court could be at best 5 to 6
years on the reasoning that the State Government issued and
published the notification in the gazette to acquire the Nangli
Kota lands on 03.09.1992. The appellant clarified that although
the respondents were seeking to challenge the notification
dated 16.06.1997 yet, the acquisition proceedings had begun
1010
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in the year 1976. The subject land was handed over to the
appellant on 15.01.1981. Therefore, taking the year 1976 to be
the point of cause of action, the appellant submitted that the
respondents approached the High Court 21 years after vesting
of the said lands in the State Government. The learned senior
counsel made an additional submission that once the land
stood vested in the State and the possession was handed over
to the appellant, the appellant could be said to have acquired
ownership of the land.
l)
The Nangli Kota lands were acquired in the year 1977 for the
purpose of a residential scheme. The general public would have
been the beneficiary. However, the protracted litigation and
inordinate delay frustrated the very purpose for which the land
was even though the subject land has been in the possession
of the appellant and lying vacant for almost 50 years.
m)
As regards the issue of quantum of compensation raised by
the appellant, the learned counsel submitted that sub-section
(3) of Section 53 provided for methods of determination
of compensation. One of the methods provided therein
was that compensation can be determined by way of an
agreement between the State Government and the person to
be compensated. Section 53(4) provided that where no such
agreement could be reached, the State Government shall have
to refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount
of compensation to be paid.
n)
In the case of Nangli Kota lands, the amount towards
compensation to be paid to the respondents was decided as
per the statement of acceptance dated 06.06.1980 and a draft
agreement under Section 53(3) duly signed and submitted on
a stamp paper, by the seven sons of late Ram Narain. The
said agreement stipulated that the respondents shall accept
an amount of Rs. 90,000/- in lieu of the 5 bighas of the land.
The respondents also agreed to hand over vacant and peaceful
possession of the subject lands to the State Government
or any other person specified in their behalf.