Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Whether Notice Of Land Acquisition Should Be Served On Possessors Whose Names Are Not Reflected In Revenue Records

The Supreme Court recently delivered a split verdict on whether notice must be given to possessors in a land acquisition proceeding by the acquiring authority under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, when their names were not reflected in the revenue records, despite being in possession of the land. The appeal was filed against an order of the Rajasthan High Court that had held that land acquisition in question was void since the acquisition notification was issued without serving notice on the landowner. The matter was considered by a division bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Justice Roy dismissed the appeal, while Justice Misra allowed it. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger bench.Justice Misra was of the view that if the name of the owner is not reflected on the land records, the state is not expected to make a roving enquiry into the same. In such a case, serving notice on the owners entered in the land records is sufficient compliance of the statutory obligation, he held.However, Justice Roy held that the procedure prescribed under S. 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 for issuance of notice was not followed in this case. He held that even though land acquisition by acquiring authority is permitted for public purpose, not adhering to the procedure prescribed, could prejudice the landowners and other interested persons. He also observed that the statute must be interpreted in such a way that the person losing the land is protected by procedural safeguards. Brief Facts In the case at hand, a suit was instituted against Urban Improvement Trust (appellant before the Apex Court) by the Respondents seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the Trust from acquiring the land in dispute without following due process of law. When the matter came up for consideration before the High Court, it took the view that the acquisition notification was issued without notice to the plaintiff and was thus held to be null and void. The HC also held the suit filed for injunction to be maintainable.The High Court relied on Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 to hold that for compulsory acquisition of land, the procedure prescribed in S. 52 including giving notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the owner and/or any other interested person must be followed. Judgement Dismissing The Appeal Justice Hrishikesh Roy while dismissing the appeal, agreed with the view of the High Court that the procedure prescribed under S. 52 of the Act was not followed. The implication of S. 52 is that notice is required to be served not only to the owner but also to “any other person interested” thereby covering everyone interested in the concerned land, he held. Finding the land acquisition proceedings to be void ab initio, the Justice Roy observed as under: “..dispossession without following prescribed statutory process such as giving proper notice, is not only highly prejudicial but it is also a violation of constitutional rights and would thereby vitiate the entire process of land acquisition. Law is well-settled that strict adherence to the mandatory procedural requirements outlined in the legislation is sine-qua-non for the compulsory acquisition of land. Legally conducted acquisition procedures minimize the potential for arbitrary action by the concerned Authority.” Justice Roy observed that the respondent had purchased the land in dispute and was in peaceful possession of it, until the land acquisition proceedings were initiated. He observed that, even though land acquisition by acquiring authority is permitted for public purpose, not adhering to the procedure prescribed, could prejudice the landowners and other interested persons. “Acquisition of land for public purpose is permitted by law, but the acquiring authority is required to ensure adherence to the statutory regime for compulsory acquisition. Only by strict adherence to the procedure, a measure of protection is afforded to the landowners and the interested persons, and implicit therein is fairness in the procedure. After all, one is concerned with protection of constitutional rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.” He added that the statute must be interpreted in such a way that the person losing the land is protected by procedural safeguards: “There ought to be substantive limits on the power of eminent domain in order to avoid arbitrary action. Strict adherence to procedure is an essential safeguard towards achieving fairness and transparency in the land acquisition process. Such procedures provide land owners and interested persons a fair opportunity to say why their land should not be acquired and also whether the compensation assessed for their lands is adequate. To deny procedural safeguards to the land loser would mean that the doors of justice are shut for him. Such an interpretation, in my view, should be avoided.” The appellant had contended that the land in ...

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Whether Notice Of Land Acquisition Should Be Served On Possessors Whose Names Are Not Reflected In Revenue Records

Sheryl Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sheryl Sebastian

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Whether Notice Of Land Acquisition Should Be Served On Possessors Whose Names Are Not Reflected In Revenue Records

Sheryl Sebastian

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sheryl Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers