1995 INSC 0915
                                                 Yadu Nandan Garg

                                                           Vs

                                           State of Rajasthan and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 5315 of 1983

                                        (K. Ramaswamy, B. N. Kirpal JJ)

                                                      01.11.1995

                                                        ORDER

1. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for
short 'the Act') was published in the Gazette on 17-10-1963 acquiring 99 biswas and 17 bighas of
land in Rampura Roopa and Gopalpur villages for 'planned development of Jaipur 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 7-1-1971 after the improvement scheme had been finalised 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 registered sale deed dated 15-7-1970. Thereafter,
the notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act on 12-4-1971. The appellant filed an application
for exemption on 15-7-1971 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 17-5-1972 he filed a writ
petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 15-11-1979 dismissed the
writ petition and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 16-7-1980 in
D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 194 of 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. Shri P. H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised a threefold 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 given exemption from the acquisition whereas the
appellant's site used for residential purpose has not been exempted. The appellant had constructed
the house and is living therein and thus this invidious discrimination offends Article 14 of the
Constitution. Lastly, he contended that survey number initially mentioned was '265' whereas in the
notice under Section 9 it was mentioned as '265/1' and that, therefore, the acquisition proceedings
are invalid in law as it was not covered by Section 4(1) notification.

3. 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 appellant 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 as against the State. It is an
encumbrance on the State and when the acquisition is 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 to the property.

4. Shri Parekh contended that the unexplained delay in issuing declaration 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
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 afterwards the declaration under 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.

5. It is true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand Nursery had the benefit of the
exemption. The wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the authorities will not clothe 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 a cloud
on valid notification issued under 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.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.