1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Shri Gurukul,Chittorgarh Vs. State of Raj.& anr. D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.434/2008 UNDER RULE 134 OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES. Date of Judgment: 24th Nov., 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.S.L.Jain, for appellant. Mr.A.K.Rajvanshi, Addl.Advocate General. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE KAPADIA J.) 1. By the instant appeal filed under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dt.13.11.2007 rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1628/1996 by the 2 learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed under Arts.226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellant has been dismissed and resultantly, prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 25.3.96, Annex.6 to the petition, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and to declare null and void the whole of the proceedings for acquisition of land, has been refused and further prayer to issue directions to start acquisition proceedings in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order for compensation, solatium and interest, has also been refused. 2. The appellant claims to be registered Society, under the Societies Registration Act, having aims and objects of moral values and improvement of standard of education amongst young generations according to the indian Culture and heritage and imparts education according to ancient principles of Ayurvedas. It is averred in the petition that the appellant was the 3 khatedar of 7 bighas and 6 biswas of land, possession of which was taken by the State Government without any written notice to any of the land holders, as the land fell in the canal area of Arai Canal and for this purpose, the reference was made by the award of the Sub Divisional Officer dt.12.12.1988, Annex.2 to the petition. It is further averred that out of the land of the appellant of which the possession was taken, for 2 bighas and 6 biswas of land which was taken possession in 1963, land has been given in exchange adjacent to the Gurukul and for rest of the land, which was offered, was said to be recorded as Forest land, therefore, nothing was done to deliver the possession of other land. It is further averred that during all these years, no intimation or notice of completion of proceedings was ever issued to the appellant. According to the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer made award, Annex.2 without issuing any notice to any of the land owners, assessed the compensation without indicating any scale or basis for valuation of land and 4 that the market value of the land at the relevant time was much higher. It is further averred that notice of award was not ordered to be issued to any of the affected land holders, apprising them to withdraw the amount of the award, or to make their objections, if they feel dissatisfied. Thus, according to the appellant, the provisions of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred-to as “the Act”) have been violated. It is averred that the award was declared on 12.12.1988 and the notice came to be issued on 10.4.95 and on coming to know these facts, certified copy of the award was applied which was given to the appellant on 17.7.1995 and, therefore, objection against issuance of award was submitted on 22.8.1995 before the respondent No.2 within time. It is further averred that the award was made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and, therefore, the same was void ab initio and violative of principles of natural justice, the valuation was claimed to be arrived at a much lower figure, then the objection 5 about award of interest was also raised and various other objections were also raised. The representations Annex.4 and 5 to the petition, were also submitted. However, the S.D.O. decided those objections vide order dt.25.3.1996, Annex.6, which was under challenge. It has, therefore, prayed for the relief, reference of which has been made in earlier paragraphs of this judgment. 3. Writ petition has been contested by respondent No.1 by filing reply affidavit, which was sworn by the S.D.O., Begun, Distt. Chittorgarh, wherein all the grounds set forth in the petition, have been denied and it is inter alia averred that total 8 bighas and 9 biswas of the appellant's land was acquired and in alternative, the appellant was given land measuring 2 bighas and 10 biswas and compensation was given to the appellant in lieu of acquisition which is clear from the perusal of the award dt.12.12.1988. It is also stated that the appellant participated in the acquisition 6 proceedings and his presence was recorded on 19.6.1980. Likewise, counsel for the appellant had also been appearing regularly in the proceedings and his attendance too, was recorded on 9.7.80, 21.8.80 and 22.9.80. It is further stated that as per the market rate prevailing in January, 1988, the appellant had been paid compensation while passing award dt.12.12.1988. It is also averred that if the appellant was aggrieved with the award, it could have filed an appeal within a period of 60 days and having not done so, the award t.12.12.1988 had become final. It is also stated that the award in respect of acquisition of land of 14 khatedars was made on 12.12.1988 and the information to make good the compensation was sent to the Executive Engineer, Chittorgarh and then the amount for being paid, was received by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the appellant on 24.10.89 got registered a case before the Vigilance Committee for payment of compensation. The said case was disposed-of on 21.4.93 directing the Executive 7 Engineer, Irrigation, Chittorgarh to make payment of award worth Rs.11,027/-. The appellant could have filed reference within a period of 6 months thereafter but it did not choose to do so. It is, thus, wrong to say that from 12.12.1988 to 10.4.1995, no information was given to the appellant. On the aforesaid premise, it is stated in the reply that the petition being barred by delay and laches and acquisition also having no merits, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it was prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Mr.S.L.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the similar contentions, which were raised by him before the learned Single Judge and in support thereof, he has relied upon the following decisions of this Court: (i) Khangararam vs. State of Rajasthan 1981 WLN(UC) p.409; (ii) Hira Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 1994(3) WLC (Raj.) p.702; & 8 (iii)Roopa vs. State of Rajasthan 2000(3) WLC (Raj.) p.326. 5. In counter submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has also raised the similar contentions, stated in the reply affidavit filed in the petition. 6. The learned Single Judge after considering the averments made in the petition alongwith the documents produced and reply affidavit filed by the respondents and also the submissions advanced at the Bar, came to the conclusion that the order Annex.6 does not suffer from any error requiring interference in his writ jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ petition has been dismissed, which has given rise to the instant intra court appeal at the instance of the original petitioner. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.S.L.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and 9 Mr.A.K.Rajvanshi, Additional Advocate General. We have also perused the award, averments made in the petition together with documents forming part of the petition as well as reply affidavit filed by the respondents and the impugned judgment and order and also statutory provisions contained under the Act as well as the judgments, cited at the Bar. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the award has been made after more than two years and, therefore, bad in law. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit and against the record of the case. A bare look at the objections submitted vide Annex.3 to the petition, or the subsequent representation vide Annex.4 or even Annex.5, shows that it is nowhere the stand of the appellant that the award has not been made within a period of two years with the result that the land acquisition proceedings lapsed or the award could not be made, rather only 10 objection taken was that the Central Land Acquisition Act came into force with effect from 3.1.1987 and, therefore, the award should have been passed under and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1984, and not in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, which stood repealed. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out as to how the period of two years is to be calculated and as to how the award could not be made on 12.12.1988. On a perusal of the order, Annex.6, it is seen that after issuance of the notice, objections were submitted, which have been considered on merits by the learned Land Acquisition Officer and it has been found that in response to the notice under Section 5A of the Act, the appellant prayed for being given land in exchange of the land and prayed for being given Araji No.1, which being pasture land, could not be allotted and, therefore, the same was not allotted, therefore, only 2 bighas and 10 biswas land was allotted. 11 9. The contention about exchange of land and notice on 12.12.1988 was considered and it was found that the appellant had lodged a complaint before the District Vigilance Committee on 24.10.89, whereupon the matter was heard and decided on 21.4.93 and the Executive Engineer was directed to make payment of the awarded amount expeditiously, copy whereof was also given to the appellant. Therefore, according to us, at that time, the appellant was very much aware about passing of the award. In order Annex.6, it was also considered that the appellant had filed an application under Sec.18 of the Act for making reference alongwith their affidavit. However, since it was time barred having been filed after more than six months, even from the date of coming to know of the award and, therefore, the objection was dismissed. 10. So far as the validity of the acquisition proceedings is concerned, no fact has been pleaded and no ground has been made out, on which the 12 proceedings could be challenged or be quashed. 11. So far as the award is concerned, if the appellant was aggrieved of the award, its remedy did lay by moving appropriate application under section 18 of the Act. More so, because the basic gravamen of the objections is about the valuation of the land and the quantum of compensation assessed or interest or solatium etc., which could be taken care of only u/s.18 of the Act and since admittedly, no application u/s.18 of the Act has been filed within the time prescribed and in Annex.6, the Land Acquisition Officer has found that the appellant did have the knowledge of the award, in any case in the year 1993, when his application made before the District Vigilance Committee was disposed and a copy of the order was given to it. This is a pure finding of fact and even, it is not alleged that the copy of the order of the District Vigilance Committee was not given to the appellant. 13 12. The judgments, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, rested on the facts of those cases and have no relevance with the facts of the instant case, therefore, detailed reference of those judgments is not required to be given. 13. On overall looking into the matter, according to us, the order Annex.6 does not suffer from any error requiring interference in the writ jurisdiction. Besides this, the appellant has challenged the acquisition proceedings after abnormal delay and laches and has also acquiesced the right to challenge the proceedings. Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. 14. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding and ultimate conclusion and result and order passed by the learned Single Judge, as according to us, no other finding, order or conclusion is possible on the facts & circumstances emerging from the record of the 14 case. 15. Seen in the above context, this intra Court appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected on the threshold. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the instant intra Court appeal fails and is, accordingly, rejected. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (A.M.KAPADIA), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS