Acquisition notice, injunction suit, and revenue-court bar shaped the challenge to land vesting and title.

Acquisition under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act was not void merely because notice under Section 52(2) was not served on purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record; notice to the recorded khatedars and the presumption of regularity sufficed. A bare suit for injunction, without declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was not maintainable once the acquisition had created a cloud on title and vested the land in the State. The civil suit was also barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act because the relief could be pursued before the revenue forum. The appeal failed and the respondents' decree remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition notification under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 was void for want of notice under Section 52(2) to the purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record; (ii) whether a suit for injunction simpliciter, without a declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was maintainable in respect of the acquired land; (iii) whether the civil suit was barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Issue: Whether the acquisition notification under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 was void for want of notice under Section 52(2) to the purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record?

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter VII of the 1959 Act requires prior notice to the owner and other interested persons before publication of the acquisition notification, followed by hearing and determination, after which vesting takes place under Section 52(4). The Court held that where the purchasers were not recorded in the revenue records, and notice had been served on the recorded khatedars, non-service on the unrecorded purchasers did not by itself render the acquisition notification void. The presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied, and the land could not be treated as vested invalidly merely because the purchasers claimed title through unmutated sale deeds.

Conclusion: The acquisition notification was not void on the ground of non-service of notice on the unrecorded purchasers.

Issue: Whether a suit for injunction simpliciter, without a declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was maintainable in respect of the acquired land?

Analysis: Once the acquisition notification under Section 52(1) stood published, the land vested in the State under Section 52(4), creating a cloud on the plaintiff's title. Applying the principles governing suits for injunction and declaration, a bare injunction suit was held not maintainable when validity of the acquisition and title to the land were in issue. The State was also treated as a necessary party because the acquisition was undertaken by it and the challenge required disclosure of the steps taken for acquisition and vesting. The suit, as framed, was therefore held to suffer from non-maintainability.

Conclusion: The suit for injunction simpliciter, without declaration and without impleading the State, was not maintainable.

Issue: Whether the civil suit was barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955?

Analysis: The surviving dispute concerned agricultural land, and the Tenancy Act provides for suits and injunction-related remedies before the revenue courts under the Third Schedule. The Court held that, in view of the statutory scheme, the relief of injunction could be pursued in the revenue forum and the civil court's jurisdiction stood excluded for such a claim. Accordingly, the civil suit was held to be barred by the Tenancy Act.

Conclusion: The civil suit was barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the decree in favour of the respondents was left undisturbed.

Concurring Opinion: Manoj Misra, J. held that the acquisition was not void, the civil suit was not maintainable in respect of the acquired land, and the suit was also barred under the Tenancy Act, 1955, so the appellant's appeal deserved to be allowed and the decree of the Trial Court restored.

---