http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: YADU NANDAN GARG

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  520            1996 SCC  (1) 334  JT 1995 (8)   179        1995 SCALE  (6)389

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The preliminary Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Rajasthan Land  Acquisition Act, 1953 [for short, ’the Act’] was published  in the  Gazette on October 17, 1963 acquiring 99 Biswas  & 17 Bighas of land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages  for  ’planned  development  of  Jaipur  city’.  It comprises of  Survey No.  265 admeasuring  12 bighas  of the land in Rampura Roopa village. The declaration under Section 6 was  published on  January 7,  1991 after  the improvement scheme  had   been  finalised   under  the  Rajasthan  Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1969. In the meanwhile, the appellant had purchased  453 sq.  yards, viz.,  3 biswas  of the  land under  a   registered  sale  deed  dated  15th  July,  1970. Thereafter, the notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act on April  12, 1971.  The appellant  filed an application for exemption on  July 15,  1991 which  was turned down. He also filed an  objection to  the notice under Section 9 regarding Survey No.  265/1. Since  exemption was  rejected on May 17, 1972 he filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge  by his order dated November 15, 1979 dismissed the writ petition and the same was confirmed by the Division bench of  the High  Court on  July 16,  1980 in  D.B.  Civil Special Appeal  No. 194 of 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave.      Sri P.H.  Parekh, learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant, raised three-fold contention, viz., that there is an unexplained  inordinate delay  between publication of the the preliminary  notification under  Section 4  [1] and  the declaration under  Section 6  vitiating the  validity of the notification under  Section 4 [1]. So it needs to be quashed on that  premise. He  further contended  that Anand  Nursery which  is   adjacent  to  the  appellant’s  site  was  given exemption from  the acquisition whereas the appellant’s site used for  residential purpose  has not  been  exempted.  The appellant had  constructed the  house and  is living therein

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

and thus this invidious discrimination offends Article 14 of the Constitution.  Lastly, he  contended that  survey number initially mentioned  was ’265’  whereas in  the notice under Section 9  it was  mentioned as ’265/1’ and that, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are invalid in law as it was not covered by 4(1) notification.      We  do   not  find   any  substance  in  any  of  these contentions. It  is seen  that long  after the  notification under Section  4 [1]  was  published  in  the  Gazette,  the appellant had  purchased the  property and  constructed  the house thereon.  Therefore, as against the State his purchase was not lawful and it could not be used against the State to cloth it  with a colour of title as against the State. It is an encumbrance  against the  State and  when the acquisition was finalised  and the  possession is taken, the State under Section 16  is entitled to have the possession with absolute title free  from all  encumbrances. The appellant cannot get any title much less valid title to the property.      Sri Parekh  contended that  the  unexplained  delay  in issuing  declaration   under  Section  6  is  fatal  to  the acquisition. That  contention is  no longer available to the appellant. He  himself had  purchased the  property in  1970 long after  the acquisition  and, therefore,  he cannot take the ground of unexplained delay between the date of issuance of notification  under Section  4 [1]  and  the  declaration under Section  6. It  is seen  that after the publication of the notification  under Section 4 [1] the improvement scheme was prepared  and sent  to the  Government for  finalisation thereof. It  has taken,  as usual, certain time for approval and after the declaration under Section 6 was duly published in the  Gazette. Under  these circumstances,  we do not find any inordinate  delay in  the issuance  of declaration under Section 6  and the  valid notification  under Section 4 does not become  invalid on  that account  due to inaction on the part of the subordinates.      It is  true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand  Nursery had  the benefit  of the  exemption. The wrong exemption  under wrong action taken by the authorities will not  cloth others  to get  the  same  benefit  nor  can Article  14  be  pressed  into  service  on  the  ground  of invidious discrimination. The wrong mention of Survey number in notice  under  Section  9  cannot  cast  cloud  on  valid notification issued  under Section  4 [1]  of the Act. It is enough  that   main  survey   number  is  mentioned  in  the notification under  Section 4  and the details thereof would be supplemented  at the  appropriate stage.  Mention of  the sub-division of  the main  survey number does not render the notification under Section 4 [1] does not get vitiated.      The appeal  is accordingly  dismissed but  without  any order as to costs.