1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8689/2008. (Kanaram & Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Others) DATE OF ORDER : November 05, 2008 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. R.J. Punia for the petitioners. BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 21.07.2008, Annex.-7 and order dated 25.07.2008, Annex.-8. The main contention of the petitioner is that vide sale-deed dated 20.12.2007 he has purchased the land situated in khasra 788 measuring about 17 bigha 16 biswa in village Prajapaton-ki-Dhani through registered sale-deed dated 20.12.2007. Thereafter, his name was entered in the revenue record on 03.01.2008. On the basis of the aforesaid registered sale-deed and entry in the revenue records vide Annex.-2, an application was filed by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer, RSMML, Barmer on 19.01.2008. But, vide the impugned order 2 dated 21.07.2008, Annex.-7 the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected. According to the petitioner, the said land was earlier belonging to one Chetan s/o Harchand and Smt. Pura, widow of late Harchand from whom he purchased the land. After entries in the revenue records, in the acquisition proceedings, his name was to be included for the purpose of compensation but the prayer of the petitioner for including his name is rejected on illegal grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act submits that if at any stage of the proceedings the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interest in the land who appear before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in form form prescribed by the rules made by the appropriate Government, he may without making further enquiry make an award according to the terms of such agreement. Therefore, both the orders impugned deserve to be quashed because after purchasing the land in question when the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records, then, certainly his name was to be included in the record of the acquisition proceedings. I have perused the impugned order. Admittedly, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was 3 published and, thereafter objections were invited by the respondents and after deciding the objections, another notification under Section 6 was published on 15.09.2007 and, admittedly, the land in question was acquired by the Government while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act on 15.09.2007. Thereafter, the land in question was purchased by the petitioner vide sale-deed dated 20.12.2007; meaning thereby, the petitioner purchased the land which was subject matter of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and his name was entered illegally by the Patwari concerned on 03.01.2008, which is evident from Annex.-2. In this view of the matter, the land which was already under acquisition for which notification under Section 6 had already been issued on 15.09.2007 was purchased by the petitioner on 20.12.2007, after three months. It is very strange that the concerned Patwari entered the name of the petitioner on the basis of the said purchase knowing it well that for the land in question acquisition proceedings up to issuance of notification under Section 6 has already been undertaken. Therefore, obviously no fruitful right accrued to the petitioner for getting his name included as khatedar in the acquisition proceedings. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 4 Before parting, however, it is required to be observed that the land in question was under acquisition proceedings for which notifications under Sections 4 and 6 had already been issued by 15.09.2007; and, thereafter, the land in question was sold by the original khatedar Chetan and Smt. Puri and, on that basis, the concerned Patwari entered mutation in the revenue records. The concerned Patwari has thus committed bald illegality because the State Government had already issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 for acquisition of the said land. Therefore, there was no question of making entry in the revenue record on the basis of sale which is admittedly made subsequent to issuance of notification under Section 6 on 15.09.2007. In this view of the matter, the District Collector, Barmer is expected to make an inquiry into the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the concerned Patwari because he has acted contrary to law as a result of which unnecessary litigation has cropped up. This writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.