Land Acquisition Notification Lapsed; Supreme Court Orders Restoration of Possession to Appellants.

The SC allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the impugned orders. It declared that the preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 had lapsed, and the declaration made on 19.03.1987 was legally unsustainable. If possession of the land had been taken from the appellants, it was to be restored without delay. No orders as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Lapse of preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.
2. Legality of invoking urgency powers and dispensing with inquiry u/s 5-A after seven years.

Summary:

Issue 1: Lapse of Preliminary Notification u/s 4

The preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued on 01.05.1980 for acquiring land for a public purpose (construction of a bus stand). The declaration u/s 6 was made on 19.03.1987, after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981. The 1981 Amendment Act, effective from 27.06.1981, amended Section 6 to include a proviso that no declaration shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of notice u/s 4(5). Section 5(2) of the 1981 Amendment Act mandates that no declaration u/s 6 shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Act for notices issued before its commencement. The Court held that the preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 had lapsed, as the declaration u/s 6 was made beyond the prescribed time limit.

Issue 2: Legality of Invoking Urgency Powers and Dispensing with Inquiry u/s 5-A

The state government invoked its powers u/s 17(1) read with Section 17(4) and dispensed with the provisions of Section 5-A on 19.03.1987, seven years after the preliminary notification u/s 4. The Court emphasized that the power of urgency, which takes away the right to file objections, can only be exercised for real urgency that cannot brook delay. The Court noted that the right to file objections u/s 5-A is substantial and cannot be taken away without real urgency. The state government's invocation of urgency powers after seven years was found to be unjustified, as the inquiry u/s 5-A could have been completed within a few months. The dispensation of inquiry u/s 5-A was declared legally unsustainable.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the impugned orders. It declared that the preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 had lapsed and the declaration made on 19.03.1987 was legally unsustainable. If possession of the subject land had been taken from the appellants, it was to be restored to them without delay. No orders as to costs.

---