Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Subhash Kumar Gupta vs Sub Divisional Officer Anr … on 21 August, 2025
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:33043-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 720/2017
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4108/2015
Subhash Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Sharwan Lal Ji Pansari,
Ward No. 6, Shahpura Road, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
2. 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 GOYALOrder
21/08/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. 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
(Downloaded on 30/08/2025 at 12:08:51 AM)
[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
maintaining a writ petition bearing
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(Downloaded on 30/08/2025 at 12:08:51 AM)
[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 with the
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(Downloaded on 30/08/2025 at 12:08:51 AM)
[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
(Downloaded on 30/08/2025 at 12:08:52 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link