1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.127/1999 Ashu Ram. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. Date : 17.8.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.NL Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.N Mulchandani, Dy.GA, for the respondents. - - - - - BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 7.12.1961 by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 notification was issued on 29.12.1966. According to the petitioner, petitioner's some piece of land was acquired in that land acquisition proceedings but compensation has not been 2 awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner on the basis of such grievance of the year 1966 has filed the writ petition in the year 1999 after 33 years. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was khatedar tenant of the land in question and he has placed on record copy of allotment of land in favour of the petitioner's father (Annex.1). The petitioner's father, who was pursuing his claim case, died in the year 1977 and till this death, compensation was not paid to him. The petitioner, thereafter submitted several representations to the concerned authorities for grant of compensation and the revenue authorities themselves admitted that the compensation was not paid to the petitioner or his father which is evident from Annex.12 dated 27.4.1981. In this communication Annex.12, the Land Acquisition Officer clearly certified that the petitioner's land was acquired for construction of road and the petitioner or his father was not paid compensation. In view of the above and in view of the other documents evidencing that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, it was submitted that the respondents be directed to give compensation to the petitioner or atleast a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation. 3 The respondents submitted a detailed reply and stated that firstly the petitioner's father himself sold the land in question in his life time and secondly, the land of the petitioner or his father was not acquired for construction of the road. It is also submitted that the petitioner and his father were not entitled to any compensation because of the above reasons. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as the facts of the case. The broad facts are that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1966 and as per the documents produced by the petitioner himself and particularly the fact mentioned in Annex.2, Section 6 notification was issued on 29.12.1966. It is made clear that the entire record of the proceedings was in total mutilated condition and, therefore, it cannot be even gathered whether the land measuring 132.07 bighas was acquired or only 32 bighas land was acquired. From other documents, it appears that there is a reference of one award passed in the said land acquisition proceedings but even copy of the award is not available or traceable. The petitioner did not produce the copy 4 of the notification or any award passed in the land acquisition proceedings. There is mention in Annex.2 in para no.11 that in the order-sheet, there is mention that the award was issued and from that, an inference was drawn by the authorities that the award might have been passed with the consent of the agricultural land holders and must have been paid compensation also. In the background of these facts, it is clear that the petitioner who has filed the writ petition after about 36 years from the date of publication of Section 4 notification and after 33 years from the date of publication of Section 6 notification and who has not placed on record the relevant certified copies from the land acquisition file, therefore, after such delay, the direction cannot be issued to the respondents to consider the claim case of the petitioner. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya