INDRAPURI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMIT! LTD v. Tlffi·STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeals are dismissed with costs
Provisions considered
Judgment
A notice under s. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquis.ition ·Act, 1953 was issued by the State Government in May, 1960. It was published in. the· gazette in June, 1960. A notice under s. 6 was issued in May, 1961 and under s. 9 in July, 1961. In January 1970 the appellants challenged the validity of these notifications. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners were C guilty of Inordinate delay. Dismissing the appeals to this Court. HELD : The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions on the ground of de lay. Any challenge to the notifications shoold be made within a reasonable time. [70B; A] If persons allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings D on the basis that the notification under s. 4 and the declaration under s. 6 were valid and then attacked the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. [69E-F] A(latoo11 & Ors. v.
Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (19751) 1 SCR 802 followed. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 943 and E 980 to 989 of 1973. Appeals by Special! Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 12th April, 1973 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeals Nos. 311, 310; 313, 316, 317, 320 to 325 of 1971. A. K. Sen and M. M. Kshatriya for the appellants. Niren De Attomey General and L. M. Singhvi, S. M, Jain and S. K. Tewari, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals are by special leave from the judgment datr-d 12 April, 1973 of the Rajasthan High Court. The State of Rajasthan proposed to acquire land for the planned development of the city of Jaipur. F G On 13 IMay, 1960 a notice was issued under section 4 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter reffn-ed to as the Act) which was published in the Rajasthan Gai.ette on 9 June, 1960. No objection was made under section SA of the Act.
A notice under section 6 of the Act was published on 11 May, 19,61. On issued, 18 July, 1961 notices under section. 9 of the Act were H , INDRAl'URI GRIHA NIRMAN V. RAJASTHAN (Ray, C./.) 6 9 -' A 63 persons including the predecessor-in-title of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 943 of 1973 filed claims. An award under the Act was made on 9 January, 1964. On 9 July, 1964 the award was amended because of certai,n transactions · of sale of portions of the land. B Writ Petitions were filed on 23 January, 19}0. The appellants challenged the validity of the notifications dated 13 May, 1960 and 3 May, 1961 issued under sections 4 and 6. of the Act. The appel lants also challenged the notices dated 18 July, 1961 under section 9 of the Act. The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of inordinate C delay. The appellants failed on that grouI1P. The High Court also dealt with the challenge to the land acquisi tion proceedings on the ground of discrimination and further plea that the land . was being acquired at negligible price and same would be sold at exorbitant price by the Improvement Trust to the public.
The High Court did not accept any of the grounds on the merit~. The Attorney General said at the threshold that if the ap?e.llants would fail on the ground of delay it was not necessary to go into the rest of the contention~ ·in the judgment. · recent decision This Court in the in Aftatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (11) held if persons allowed the basis Government to complete the acquisition J'roceedings on that the notification under section 4 an the declaration under 6 were valid and then . attacked the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. (supra) were · these. The facts iii Aftatoon's case On 13 November, 1959 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued.· Between 1959 and 1961 objections were under section SA of the Act. On 18 March, 1966 declaration under section 6 of the Act was published.
Operative part
In 1970 notices under section 9 of the Act were issued. Writ Petitions were filed in 1972. The petitioners did not move after the declaration under section 6 of the Act. The petitioners came to the court after the issue of notice under section 9 of the Act. · D E F G In the present case the facts show in bold relief that the appellants came to Court nine years after the declaration under section 6 of the Act, H Land. Acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under section 4 of the Act. Obiections. are invited under section SA of the Act. Thereafter a declaration under section 6 of the ;.\ct is (I) (1975) I S.C.R. 802. 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 2 s.c.R. made. Any chaJlenge to a notification under section 4 and a decla ration under section 6 of the Act should be made within a reasonable time thereafter. The length of the delay is an important · circums the Interval tance because of the nature of the acts done during on the basis of the notification and the declaration, The High CQurt rightly dismissed the applli=atio11s on the ground of delay. A B The appeals are dismissed with costs. There will be one set of cests. P.B.R
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeals are dismissed with costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 — s. 4; Land Acquisition Act — s. 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Another 1 relationship is under human verification and not counted above.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.
Later judgments that treat this case
- Cited2022_17_1079_1105