Supreme Court of India
INDRAPURI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
- Decided
- 17 September 1974
- Judges listed
- A.N. RAY, KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, A.C. GUPTA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1975] 2 S.C.R. 68 · 1974 INSC 177
- Also cited as
- (1975) 4 SCC 296
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
- HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. versus MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ORS.
- RAVI KHULLAR AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD AND ORS.
- SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
RAY, C.J. These appeals are by special leave from the judgment datr-d 12 April, 1973 of the Rajasthan High Court.
p. 68
The State of Rajasthan proposed to acquire land for the planned development of the city of Jaipur.
p. 68
On 13 IMay, 1960 a notice was issued under section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter reffn-ed to as the Act) which was published in the Rajasthan Gai.ette on 9 June, 1960.
p. 68
H , No objection was made under section SA of the Act. A notice under section 6 of the Act was published on 11 May, 19,61. On 18 July, 1961 notices under section. 9 of the Act were issued, 63 persons including the predecessor-in-title of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 943 of 1973 filed claims.
pp. 68–69
An award under the Act was made on 9 January, 1964. On 9 July, 1964 the award was amended because of certai,n transactions of sale of portions of the land. ·
p. 69, margin A
Writ Petitions were filed on 23 January, 19}0. The appellants challenged the validity of the notifications dated 13 May, 1960 and 3 May, 1961 issued under sections 4 and 6. of the Act. The appellants also challenged the notices dated 18 July, 1961 under section 9 of the Act.
p. 69, margin B
The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of inordinate delay. The appellants failed on that grouI1P.
p. 69, margin B
The High Court also dealt with the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings on the ground of discrimination and the further plea that the land . was being acquired at negligible price and the same would be sold at exorbitant price by the Improvement Trust to the public. The High Court did not accept any of the grounds on the merit~.
p. 69, margin C
The Attorney General said at the threshold that if the ap?e.llants would fail on the ground of delay it was not necessary to go into the rest of the contention~ ·in the judgment. ·
p. 69, margin D
This Court in the recent decision in Aftatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. held that if persons allowed the Government to complete the acquisition J'roceedings on the basis that the notification under section 4 an the declaration under 6 were valid and then . attacked the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics.
p. 69, margin D
The facts iii Aftatoon's case (supra) were · these. On 13 November, 1959 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued.· Between 1959 and 1961 objections were filed under section SA of the Act. On 18 March, 1966 declaration under section 6 of the Act was published. In 1970 notices under section 9 of the Act were issued. Writ Petitions were filed in 1972. The petitioners did not move after the declaration under section 6 of the Act. The petitioners came to the court after the issue of notice under section 9 of the Act. ·
p. 69, margin E
In the present case the facts show in bold relief that the appellants came to Court nine years after the declaration under section 6 of the Act,
p. 69, margin G
Land. Acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under section 4 of the Act. Obiections. are invited under section SA of the Act. Thereafter a declaration under section 6 of the ;.\ct is (I) I S.C.R. 802. made. Any chaJlenge to a notification under section 4 and a declaration under section 6 of the Act should be made within a reasonable time thereafter. The length of the delay is an important · circumstance because of the nature of the acts done during the Interval on the basis of the notification and the declaration,
pp. 69–70, margin H
The High CQurt rightly dismissed the applli=atio11s on the ground of delay.
p. 70
The appeals are dismissed with costs. There will be one set of cests. P.B.R
p. 70