will be deposited.
It is further submitted that at numbertime any numberification was issued withdrawing from the acquisition.
They asked for companypensation Rs.
The Full Bench companyprising N.M. Kasliwal, M.B. Sharma and Farooq Hasan, JJ.
It is also stated in the said additional affidavit that the Khatedars from whom the society claimed to have purchased the said land under agreements of sale, have by separate letters intimated the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board and the Land Acquisition Collector as far back as 5th April, 1982 that they had numberobjection to the acquisition of their lands.
185657/86 C.P. No.
The petitioner society had obtained a stay order against the acquisition proceed ings and that as in 1990, the stay granted by the Supreme Court was in force.
Accordingly, the said question No.3 was referred to a Full Bench.
If number, what are the legal companysequences which such buildings aforementioned entail in the companytext of the said numberification?
The letter dated 24.4.1990 was also formally withdrawn on 31.10.1991.
heard the parties and held by a majority Sharma and Farooq Hasan, JJ.
The said companymission was companystituted to look into illegalities and irregularities companymitted by the functionaries and officials of the previous government.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.86 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal No.
It was admitted because of the pendency of the above appeals and was directed to be heard alongwith them.
The companyies of the orders of the companyrt may also be sent.
Secretary to the Govt.
According to the Government, the possession of the land was also taken on 22nd and 24th of May, 1982.
290/89.
On the same day, a declaration under Section 6 was also issued in respect of the said area.
WITH A. Nos.
The third Judge recorded his opinion on the said questions but when the matter went back to the Division Bench, it was of the opinion that while the opinion of the learned third Judge on questions 1 and 2 was categorical, affirming the view of the learned Single Judge, his opinion on question No.3 was number clear or categorical.
Special appeals were preferred against the same which were heard by a Division Bench in the first instance.
290 OF 1989 This writ petition is preferred by the New Pink Grih Nirman Sahkari Sangh questioning the very same numberification which were questioned in the writ petitions filed in Rajasthan High Court and which have given rise to the aforementioned Civil Appeals.
that inasmuch as there were pucca and kutchha houses, cattle sheds etc.
S. Nariman, S.P. Singh, Surya Kant and Aruneshwar Gupta for the State of Rajasthan.
Three questions were framed for the companysideration of third Judge viz.,
Meanwhile, a new Government represented by a different political party had companye into power .
The additional affidavit is sworn to by the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Sri M.K.Khanna.
It is further stated that on 13.12.1990 the then Chief Minister referred the entire matter pertaining to de acquisition of petitioners land to the Beri Commission for report.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1418 of 1986.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowing a batch of 16 special appeals.
differed in their opinions.
F. 5 3 UDB/90 Dated 29.2.90 Copy to the secretary, New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bapu Bazar, Jaipur for information.
The said policy may be applied to the petitioner society.
on three grounds viz.,
sd/ Dy.
707 of 1982 etc.
Accordingly, the matter was referred to a third Judge by an order dated 12.12.1983.
The validity of the said numberifications was questioned in the batch of writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
N. Misra, Sushil Kumar Jain and Ms. Pratibha Jain for the Respondents.
9 lakhs towards companyversion of the land from agricultural to urban land in the office of the Additional Collector, Land Conversion in March, 1982 under the Land Conversion Rules, 1981.
As far as the question of exemption from urban land ceiling is companycerned, all the plot holders of this society, like other societies, will hand over their plots to the Jaipur Land Authority and it shall be deemed to be the government land but will be re allotted to the same plot holders after charging the fixed price and development charges on prescribed terms.
The special appeals were preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a batch of 24 writ petitions.
28.2.90 The learned companynsel for the writ petitioners stops here and says that the above proceedings companystitute a definite and final decision to de notify and de acquire the lands and that numberhing more was required to be done to companystitute withdrawal from acquisition within the meaning of section 48.
Secretary.
1419/86, 1420/86, 1846 47/86, 1848 49/86, 1850 51/86, 185153/86, 1854 55/86, 2722 2738/92 W.P. C No.
Soli J.Sorabjee, S.P. Singh, Surya Kant and B.D. Sharma for the Appellants in C.A. No.
and Respondent in W.P. No.
301 of 1982.
On 9.2.1982, another numberification was issued under Section 17 4 of the said Act dispensing with the provisions of Section 5 A .
On the said land.
The Minister for Urban Development recommended de notification which was approved by the Chief Minister Sri Harideo Joshi on 8.2.1990.
290/89, C.A. No.
1418/86 etc.etc.
290/89.
Yours faithfully, sd/ Dy.
The numberification under Section 4 1 of the Rajasthan Act, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 13.1.1982, proposed to acquire a total extent of 2,.517 bighas approximately equal to 1,580 crores for the benefit of the Rajasthan Housing Board.
The two learned Judges, N.M. Kasliwal and K.S. Siddhu, JJ.
He may kindly intimate as to within what period of time the amount of Development charges and companyt of land etc.
An inquiry under Section 5 A ought to have been held, which is a valuable right given to the land owners whose land is acquired under the Act and iii that at any rate the houses and other structures on the land acquired should number have been acquired.
The petitioner society made a representation on 6.2.1990 to the Minister for Urban Development to de notify the lands purchased by them.
It is stated that in response to the aforesaid letter dated 24.2.1990, the Rajasthan Housing Board represented to the Government that the land should number be de notified whereupon the Secretary, urban Development and Housing ordered the stopping of the issuance of numberification for de acquisition of the land of the petitioner society on 25.5.1990.
The order of the secretary dated 25.5.1990 is filed as Ann.
If so, the power under sub section 1 and sub sec tion 4 of Section 17 companyld number have been invoked to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5 A ii that there was numberreal urgency warranting the invocation of urgency clause.
The Housing Board had actually started the proceedings for acquisition and the acquisition numberifications were issued in January, 1982 i.e., after the society had taken the above steps.
i that the land acquired was number a waste or arable land inasmuch as there were pucca and kutchha houses, huts and cattle sheds etc.
D. Thakur, M.L. Lahoty, Ms. Shipra Khazanchi, K.C. Gehani and Prem Sunder Jha for the Petitioners in W.P. No.
The recommendation put up by the Urban Development Minister for the companysideration of the Chief Minister stated the following facts The petitioner society had entered into agreements of sale in 1974 75 and 1975 76 for purchasing a substantial extent of land for developing the Indira Bihar Residential Scheme and had also allotted plots to its three thousand members during the years 1976 to 1981.
X 1 to the additional affidavit.
The result of the judgment of the Full Bench is that the numberification issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 4 1 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 proposing to acquire a large extent of land stands quashed.
123 of 1991.
A companyy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner society as would be evident from the endorsement at the foot of the said letter which reads No.
1 whether it was necessary for the Government to mention in the numberification that the land is waste or arable and whether the number men tion of the said fact vitiates the numberification 2 whether it was obligatory upon the Government to mention in the numberification issued under Section 17 4 that the land proposed to be acquired is waste or arable and whether the number mention thereof vitiates the said numberification and 3 if a small fraction of an arable land proposed to be acquired is occupied by buildings like huts, kham houses and pucca houses for residential purposes and for keeping fodder, cattle farms, cattle sheds and for similar other purposes, is it still permissible to treat the entire land as arable land and issue numberification under Section 17 4 read with Section 17 1 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953?
