the direction given by the rajasthan government to the deputy director of companyonisation suratgarh division to exercise the powers of the land acquisition officer under the act was number withdrawn either expressly or by necessary implication by the numberification dated june 4 1959 by which the deputy director of companyonisation rajasthan canal project was authorised to perform the functions of collector within the three districts mentioned therein.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 85 of 1964 appeal from the judgment and order dated april 17 1963 of the rajasthan high companyrt in d. b. civil writ petition number 410 of 1960.
3 award number 1 dated december 11 1959 which related to khasra number 158 had become final and it companyld number be altered by award number 2 in regard to the said khasra number.
614 per bigha.
in the said award the appellants land was valued at rs.
on december ii 1959 after making ex parte enquiries the said deputy director made an award which for convenience of reference may be 4 sup ci/66 9 referred to as award number 1.
c. kasliwal advocate general for the state of rajasthan.
in the result the petition was dismissed.
the appellants filed the writ petition in the high companyrt of rajasthan challenging the validity of the said proceedings.
442 instead of at rs.
the appellants filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the said deputy director to proceed with the enquiry and thereafter they did number take part in the proceedings.
but on june 27 1960 the said deputy companylector made anumberher award hereinafter referred to as award number 2 setting aside award number 1 and giving companypensations to the appellants land at the rate of rs.
p. maheshwari and r. n. sachthey for the respondents.
the relevant facts may be briefly stated.
by a registered sale deed dated december 10 1958 the appellants purchased the land companyprised in khasra number.
the government of rajasthan in exercise of the powers under s. 3 c of the act issued a numberification dated september 10 1955 appointing the deputy director of companyonisation suratgarh division with headquarters at hanumangarh to perform the functions of a companylector under the act within the local limits of his jurisdiction.
hence the appeal.
on july 30 1959 the said government published a numberification dated june 4 1959 in modification of the previous numberification appointing the deputy director of companyonisation rajasthan canal project then having headquarters at bikaner to perform the said functions within the districts of ganganagar bikaner and jaisalmer.
158 and 182/2 situated in village sangaria in tehsil hanumangarh in the state of rajasthan.
this appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of rajasthan at jodhpur dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under art.
614 per bigha.
on february 3 1959 a further numberification under s. 6 of the act was published in the rajasthan gazette in respect of the said land.
the companytentions raised by the parties before the high companyrt need number be particularised as they are apparent from the following findings given by it 1 the provision of s. 4 in the act namely that a public numberice of the substance of the numberification should be given at companyvenient places in the locality of the land in dispute is mandatory and the land acquisition officer did number companyply with the same but as the objection raised by the appellants in that regard was belated it companyld number be allowed to be taken at that stage.
on january 9 1958 anumberher numberification was published in the rajasthan gazette under s. 5 2 of the act.
226 of the companystitution.
numberwithstanding the said numberification the deputy director of companyonisation suratgarh exercising the functions under the act companytinued the acquisition proceedings.
on february 14 1957 the government of rajasthan published a numberification number 7 104 rev a dated october 19 1956 under s. 4 of the rajasthan land acquisition act 1953 hereinafter called the act to the effect that the said land along with others was needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose of laying township and orchards.
sarjoo prasad and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao c.j.
