YADU NANDAN GARGversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

A                             YADU NANDAN GARG
                                            v.
                       STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

                                 NOVEMBER 1z 1995

B
                   [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

          Rajastha11 La11d Acquisition Act, 1953 :

          Sections 4( 1)6, 9, 16-f'reliminmy notificatio11 issued-Declaration is-
c sued subseque11tly after the improveme11t scheme has bee11 fi11alised-Exemp-
    tio11 given to a nurse1y but not to the person who had purchased the la11d after
    the 11otification and living there after constiucting a reside11tial house---Swvey
    nuntber-l!Jentioning of sub-division of the ntain suTV_ey 11un1ber in the
    notice-Held in all such cases, notificatio11 does not get vitiated.
D
           For the 'planned development of Jaipur City' a preliminary notifica-
    tion under S.4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was pub-
    lished on October 17, 1963 acc1uiring certain lands. The declaration under
    S.6 was published on January 7, 1991 after the improvement scheme was
E   finalised. In the meanwhile appellant had purchased some of the said
    lands, under a registered sales deed dated July 15, 1970. Therefore, notice
    was issued under S.9 Appellant filed an application for exemption which
    was turned down. He also filed an objection to the notice under S.9
    regarding Survey No. 265/1. As the exemption application was rejected, he
    filed a "Tit petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single
F
    Judge. The Division Bench confirmed the same. Hence this appeal.

          The appellant contended that in view of the unexplained inordinate
    delay between the preliminary notification under S.4(1) and the declara-
    tion under S.6, the notification has to be quashed; that while a nursery
G   adjacent to the appellant's site was given exemption from the acquisition,
    the appellant's site on which he had constructed a residential house and
    living therein was not exempted; and that the survey no, initially mentioned
    was 265, whereas in the notice under S.9 it was mentioned as 265/1 and
    therefore, the acc1uisition proceedings were invalid in law as it was not
H   covered by S.4(1) notification.
                                           710
                           Y.N.GARGv. STATE                              711

      Dismissing the appeal, this Court                                         A

      HELD : 1. It is seen that long after the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Act1uisition Act was published in the Gazette,
the appellant had purchased the property and constructed the house
thereon. Therefore, as against the State his purchase was not lawful and        B
it could not be used against the State to clothe it with a colour of title as
against the State. It is an encumbrance against the State and when the
acquisition was finalised and the possession is taken, the State under
Section 16 is entitled to have the possession with absolute title free from
all encumbrances. The appellant cannot get any title much less valid title      C
to the property. (713-C-D]


      2. The appellant himself had purchased the property in 1970 long
after the acquisition and therefore, he cannot take the ground of unex-
plained delay between the date of issuance of notification under section D
4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. It is seen that after the publica-
tion of the notification under Section 4(1) the improvement scheme was
prepared and sent to the Government for finalisation thereof. It has taken,
as usual, certain time for approval and after the declaration under Section
6 was duly published in the Gazette. Under these circumstances, it
cannot be said that there was any inordina~e delay in the issuance of
                                                                                E
declaration under Section 6 and the valid notification under Section 4 does
not become invalid on that accounLdue to inaction on the part of the
subordinates. [713-E-F]


      3. It is true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand
                                                                                F
Nursery had the benefit of the exemption. The wrong exemption under
wrong action taken by the authorities will not confer on others the same
benefit nor can Article 14 be pressed into service on the ground of in-
vidious discrimination. So also the wrong· mention of Survey nun1ber in
notice under Section 9 cannot cast cloud on valid notification issued under     G
Section 4(1) of the Act. It is enough that main survey number is mentioned
in the notification under Section 4 and the details thereof would be
supplemented at the appropriate stage. Mention of the sub-division of the
main survey number does not vitiate the notification under Section 4(1).
(713-G-H, 714-B]                                                                H
    712                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.·

A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5315 of
    1983.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.80 of the Rajasthan High
    Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 194 of 1980.

B        P.H. Parekh,      Krishan Mahajan and Arvind Kr. Sharma for the
    Appellant.

            Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj Kumar for the Respondents.

C           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            The preliminary Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan
    Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the
    Gazette on October 17, 1963 acquiring 99 Biswas & 17 Bighas of land in
    Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages for 'planned development of Jaipur
D   city'. It comprises of Survey No. 265 admeasuring 12 Bighas of the land in
    Rampura Roopa village. The declaration under Section 6 was published on
    January 7, 1991 after the improvc1ncnt scheme ha<l been finaJised under
    the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1969. In the meanwhile, the
    appellant had purchased 453 sq. yards, viz., 3 biswas of the land under a
E   registered sale deed dated 15th July, 1970. Therefore, the notice was issued
    under Section 9 of the Act on April 12, 1971. The appellant filed an
    application for exemption on .July 15, 1991 which was turned down. He also
    filed an objection to the notice under Section 9 regarding Survey No. 265/1.
    Since exemption was rejected on May 17, 1972 he filed a writ petition in
F   the High Court. The learned Single .Judge by his order dated November
    15, 1979 dismissed the writ petition and the same was confirmed by the
    Division Bench of the High Court on .July 16, 1980 in D.B. Civil Special
    Appeal No. 194 of 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave.

            Sri P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised
G three-fold contention, viz., that there is an unexplained inordinate delay
    between publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and
    the declaration under Section 6 vitiating the validity of the notification
    under Section 4 (1). So it needs to be quashed on that premise. He further
    contended that Anand Nursery which is adjacent to the appellant's site was
H   given exemption from the acquisition whereas the appellant's site used for
                           Y.N.GARGv. STATE                               713

residential purpose has not been exempted. The appellant had constructed         A
the house and is living therein and thus this invidious discrimination
offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Lastly, he contended that survey
nun1ber initially mentioned \Vas '265' \vhereas in the notice under Section
9 it was mentioned as '265/l' and that, therefore, the acquisition proceed-
ings are invalid in law as it was not covered by 4(1) notification.              B
      We do not find any substance in any of these contentions. It is seen
that long after the notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the
Gazette, the appell<rnt had purchased the property and constructed the
house thereon. Therefore, as against the State his purchase was not lawful
and it could not be used against the State to cloth it with a colour of title    c
as against the State. It is in encumbrance against the State and when the
acquisition was finalised and the possession is taken, the State under
Section 16 is entitled to have the possession with absolute· title free from
all encumberanccs. The appellant cannot get any title much less valid title
to the property.                                                                 D

      Sri Parekh contended that the unexplained delay in issuing declara-
tion under Section 6 is fatal to the acquisition. That contention is no longer
available to the appellant. He himself had purchased the property in 1970
long after the acquisition and, therefore, he cannot take the ground of          E
unexplained delay between the date of issuance of notification under
Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. It is seen that after the
publication of the notification under Section 4(1) the improvement scheme
was prepared and sent to the Government for finalisation thereof. It has
taken, as usual, certain time for approval and afte·r the declaration under
                                                                                 F
Section 6 was duly published in the Gazette. Under these circumstances,
we do not find any inordinate delay in the issuance of declaration under
Section 6 and the valid notification under Section 4 does not become
invalid on that account due to inaction on the part of the subordinates.

      It is true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand          G
Nursery had the benefit of the exemption. The wrong exemption under
wrong action taken by the authorities will not cloth others to get the same
benefit nor can Article 14 be pressed into service on the ground of
invidious discrimination. The wrong mention of Survey number in notice
under Section 9 cannot cast cloud on valid notification issued under             H
    714                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Section 4(1) of the Act. It is enough that main survey number is mentioned
    in the notification under Section 4 and the details thereof would be
    supplemented at the appropriate stage. Mention of the sub-division of the
    main survey number does not render the notification under Section 4(1)
    illegal.
B          The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeal dismissed.