LI Network
Published on: October 27, 2023 at 17:20 IST
The Supreme Court recently delivered a divided verdict on the issue of whether notice should be served to possessors in a land acquisition proceeding under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act when their names were not reflected in the revenue records, despite being in possession of the land.
The case stemmed from an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court decision, which deemed a land acquisition process void because the acquisition notice was issued without serving notice to the landowner.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Justice Roy dismissed the appeal, while Justice Misra allowed it, leading to a reference to a larger bench.
Justice Misra’s perspective emphasized that when the owner’s name is absent from the land records, the state is not obligated to conduct a comprehensive investigation. In such cases, serving notice to the owners listed in the land records satisfies the statutory requirement.
In contrast, Justice Roy maintained that the procedure outlined in Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, was not followed in this instance. He stressed that despite allowing land acquisition for a public purpose, failing to adhere to the prescribed procedure could harm landowners and other interested parties. He highlighted the importance of interpreting the statute to protect the rights of individuals losing their land through compulsory acquisition.
The case in question originated from a suit filed against the Urban Improvement Trust by the respondents, seeking an injunction to prevent land acquisition without due legal procedures.
The High Court, upon consideration, held that the acquisition notice was issued without notice to the plaintiff and therefore declared it null and void.
The suit for an injunction was also deemed maintainable, with the High Court referring to Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, which outlines the compulsory acquisition procedure, including providing notice and a hearing to the owner and other interested parties.
Justice Roy, in his judgment, found that the procedure specified in Section 52 necessitated notice to both the owner and “any other person interested,” covering everyone with an interest in the land. He considered the land acquisition proceedings void ab initio, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements outlined in legislation to minimize the potential for arbitrary actions.
Justice Roy acknowledged that while the land dispute in the case had been ongoing for 25 years, empirical data reveals that land disputes are widespread in India’s courts. Denying access to civil courts for those losing land through compulsory acquisition could aggravate injustice.
Justice Misra, however, took the view that the acquisition notification could not be disregarded as void. He explained that once a notification for land acquisition was issued under subsection (1) of Section 52, a legal presumption arose that it conformed to the provisions of the 1959 Act. He noted that the land vests in the State Government upon such publication, free from encumbrances, and compensation can be determined as per the statutory provisions.
Justice Misra clarified that if the owner’s name was not listed in the land records, there was no legal obligation for state authorities to investigate further to identify the actual owner for notice purposes. The service of notice to the owners listed in the land records would suffice unless it could be proven that the revenue authorities were aware of other owners not listed in the records.
Additionally, Justice Misra found the suit to be not maintainable, as it was barred by specific sections of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
This divided verdict on the service of notice in land acquisition cases under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act underscores the complexity of land acquisition processes and the importance of adhering to statutory procedures. The case was titled “Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass (D) through LRs. & Others.”