Subhash Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Sharwan Lal Ji Pansari, vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

Judgment

2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Abhimanyu Yadav on behalf of Mr. Ajit Maloo For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL 21/08/2025 Order

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the grounds raised by the appellant-petitioner while dismissing the writ petition. Counsel further submitted that although the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, however, after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act [2025:RJ-JP:33043-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-720/2017] of 2013 is clearly attracted. Counsel further prayed for allowing this appeal.

4. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore reported in 2015 (10) SCC 333.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as under:- “ Section 24 of the Act of 2013 applies in a case where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1894. Subsection (2) provides about lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 when award under Section 11 has been made prior to five years of the commencement of the Act but physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. In the instant case, acquisition proceedings were not initiated under the Act of 1894 but under the Act of 1953. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be considered to be under the Act of 1894. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to show that even if acquisition was initiated under the Act of 1953, as referred in the award and the judgment at Annexure-5, then also to be considered under the Act of 1894. No provision for it has been shown to establish acquisition to be under the Act of 1894. It is also a fact that acquisition in question was earlier challenged by petitioner’s father by petition bearing maintaining a writ No.507/1966. It was dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 29th January, 1970. It was in reference to the Rajasthan Acquisition Act, 1953. Therein, all the relevant issues were considered and decided. The judgment [2025:RJ-JP:33043-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-720/2017] aforesaid is relevant to show that land was not acquired pursuant to the Act of 1894 but under the Act of 1953 thus Section 24(2) of the Act of 1894 cannot have any relevance. After acquisition of land and on dismissal of the earlier writ petition, land vest in the State. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show application of the Act of 1894 on acquisition of land under the Act of 1953. The issue aforesaid has been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Pratap & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1996) 3 SCC 1. It was though acquisition under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 which stood repealed in the year 1987. It was found that Act of 1894 became applicable in the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 24.09.1984. The acquisition in hand is prior to the aforesaid thus Act of 1894 cannot be applied in the instant case though it was not under the Act of 1959 but under the Act of 1953. Paras 3 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “3. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was extended to the State of Rajasthan on 24-9-1984. Some of the persons whose lands were acquired filed suits challenging the acquisition proceedings under Section 52 of the said Act. According to the appellants the said suits were dismissed on 2-9-1986. Awards were passed on different dates. In the present appeals the awards were passed on 30-9-1988, 30-11-1988 and 28-6- 1989.” “11. From the facts narrated hereinabove it is clear that the Central Act was extended to the State of Rajasthan only after the land in question had vested in the State Government publication of the notification under Section 52(1) on 10th October, 1984. Once the vesting of the land in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, was completed, the subsequent extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the State of Rajasthan and the amendments made by the Amending Acts to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act becomes wholly irrelevant and of no consequence. Neither the amendments nor the extension of [2025:RJ-JP:33043-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-720/2017] the Central Act can have the effect, in law or otherwise, of divesting the State of ownership of the land which had already been vested in it.” The land in question has already vested in the respondents with acquisition and after judgment of this court in the earlier writ petition preferred by petitioner’s father. For all the reasons given above, the award cannot be declared to have lapsed in reference to Section 24(2) of the Act of 1894. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.”

7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and more so for the acquisition in question, the award was passed way back in the year 1966 and after passing of 59 years, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge at this stage.

8. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudeepak/131