Pramod Kotahwala And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

There is delay of 259 days in filing of the appeal. Application No. 902/2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the main appeal.

This appeal seeks to challenge judgment dated 03.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

The appellants by way of filing writ petition challenged notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') with the prayer that the same be quashed and set aside. The aforesaid notifications were issued proposing to acquire the land measuring 2933.33 sq. yards (19 biswas) out of the land comprising in khasra No. 206/1, 206/2, 207/1, 206/324, 319/2 and 319/352 measuring 31 bigha and 1 biswa situated in revenue village Sushilpura Tehsil Jaipur in the name of Smt. Shyama Devi wife of Late Shri Gokuldasji Kotahwala, mother of the appellants. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had not challenged the validity of report of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Act. Argument of the appellants with regard to delay in invoking Section 17(1) of the Act was also rejected because the appellants raised such objection nine months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. With regard to objection of delay in declaration under Section 6 of the Act, learned Single Judge held that as per Section 4 of the Act, there could be publication of notification by three modes out of which first is gazette followed by newspaper and lastly by affixing of notice at the conspicuous place of the locality. Objection in terms of Section 5A of the Act were required to be submitted within 30 days and thereafter hearing of the objections had to take place. The time consumed therein cannot be counted towards delay, rather, immediately after the order on the objections under Section 5A of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 and 17(1) of the Act was issued by the Government after getting the complete record and after consideration of the case. As regards urgency clause as per Section 17(1) of the Act, the learned Single Judge observed that the land was needed to urgently establish drainage as well as sewerage line in the area in question. Learned Single Judge noted that so far as drainage line is concerned, it has already been laid. However, sewerage line is yet to be laid. The argument of the appellants that sewerage line should be laid along with outer boundary of the land of the appellants so that it does not pass through middle of the land as the same would obstruct the appropriate use of the land of the appellants, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same arguments, which were made before the learned Single Judge and additionally submitted that the land was sought to be acquired for laying down drainage and sewerage lines for certain colonies namely Nirmohi Nagar, Modi Nagar and Prem Nagar. The impugned land acquisition proceedings would have resulted into dividing the land of the appellants in two parts. The appellants submitted specific objections under Section 5 of the Act that process of conversion of land from agricultural to residential has already been initiated and notice under Section 25(3) has already been issued by the Jaipur Development Authority inviting objections. Even though no objections were received but the Jaipur Development Authority has still not proceeded to permit the change of land use of the appellants. The appellants enclosed with the writ petition site plan to justify their argument that sewer pipeline could be laid adjoining the boundary wall of the land of the appellants situated towards Prem Nagar and Nirmohi Nagar from point D to E and F to G shown in the lay out plan which has been given with the technical report and then the drainage can be opened in the Amani Shah Nallah, which is situated towards eastern side of the land of the appellants and sewer line can be laid down underneath 30 ft. road situated towards the eastern side of the land of the appellants shown from point G to A and then A to C and M.

The kind of arguments, which have been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, does not in any manner afford any basis for setting aside the notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Act. The land is needed for public purpose. It goes without saying that the appellants would be entitled to compensation for such acquisition of the land. In the present matter, acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed only because according to perception of the appellants-land owners an alternative land should have been acquired by the State. We see no justification in not allowing the respondents to proceed further in the matter. The sewerage lines can pass through the middle of the land of the appellants because sewerage line and drainage line etc. are always dependent on the alignment of the land and the slop available on the ground. If the respondents, as per the opinion of the experts, have decided to acquire the land of the appellants to provide facilities of drainage and sewerage to the colonies to be developed, there would be no justification for this Court to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as also the acquisition proceedings.

In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

Stay Application also stands dismissed.