Rajasthan High Court Orders Re-evaluation of Land Acquisition for University Expansion, Cites Lack of Urgency

Special appeals highlight procedural lapses and challenge the urgency clause in long-standing land acquisition dispute.
The Rajasthan High Court has mandated a fresh evaluation of the objections related to the land acquisition for the expansion of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University. The decision, issued by a bench comprising Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Yogendra Kumar Purohit, emphasizes the procedural shortcomings in the invocation of urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The court underscored that the urgency clause was improperly applied, thereby invalidating the earlier notifications.
The dispute dates back to 1981 when a notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued to acquire land for expanding the university. Following objections from landholders in 1982, a report was forwarded to the State Government. Subsequent notifications under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act of 1953 were issued in 1982 but were never published in the official gazette.
Litigation ensued, with the initial writ petition being dismissed in 1993 as premature. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was repealed and replaced by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with amendments specific to Rajasthan. Fresh notifications were issued under the new act in 1994, which again faced legal challenges, leading to the current appeals.
The court observed significant procedural lapses, particularly in the application of the urgency clause. "The invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 in 1994, citing urgency after a long delay since the initial notification in 1981, is unjustifiable," noted the bench. The court highlighted that both the initial and subsequent notifications did not provide a valid reason for the urgency in acquiring the land.
In its detailed judgment, the court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements for land acquisition. "The simultaneous applicability of the provisions from both the repealed and the new act is legally impermissible. The urgency invoked after more than a decade contradicts the procedural norms," the bench stated.
The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal Arneja & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 453, which outlines the invalidity of urgency clauses applied without substantial justification. The judgment noted, "The very foundation of invoking Section 17 was invalid and unjustified as upheld by this Court."
The court has allowed the petitioners to submit fresh objections. "The parties concerned are at liberty to submit fresh objections, which in turn, shall be considered in accordance with Section 5A of the Act of 1894," directed the bench. This process is to ensure that all procedural norms are strictly followed and that the objections are addressed objectively and dispassionately.

Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati remarked, "The simultaneous invocation of provisions from repealed and new acts is not legally sustainable. The delay in declaring urgency defeats the purpose of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
The Rajasthan High Court's decision to re-evaluate the land acquisition process for Mohan Lal Sukhadia University highlights the judiciary's commitment to procedural integrity. By invalidating the urgency clause and allowing fresh objections, the court has reinforced the importance of following due process in land acquisition matters. This judgment is expected to set a precedent in handling similar disputes, ensuring that procedural lapses do not undermine the rights of affected landholders.
 

Date of Decision: May 30, 2024