STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs VIDYA DEVI GOYAL . — C.A. No. 14476/2024

Case under Land Acquisition and Requisition : Challenge to Land Acquisition, Lapsing of Acquisition, De-reservation, Requisition and De-requisition of Property and Others Section XV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010160342010

Filing Date

14-May-2010

Registration No

C.A. No. 14476/2024

Diary Number

16034/2010

Order Date

13-Dec-2024

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition and Requisition : Challenge to land acquisition, lapsing of acquisition, de-reservation, requisition and de-requisition of property and others Section XV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. R. GOPALAKRISHNAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIDYA DEVI GOYAL .

    Adv. S. K. VERMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Dec-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan

  3. 26-Jul-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

  4. 12-Jul-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

  5. 12-Jul-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

  6. 15-May-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

  7. 06-Feb-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

  8. 20-Oct-2022

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari

  9. 19-Oct-2022

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari

  10. 11-Oct-2022

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

  11. 13-Feb-2020

    Mention Memo

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

  12. 08-Jan-2020

    Administrative Order

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

  13. 15-Jan-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 03-Mar-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 03-Mar-2017

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 03-Mar-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 24-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 24-Jan-2017

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 24-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 11-Jan-2017

    ROPView PDF

  21. 11-Jan-2017

    ROPView PDF

  22. 28-Oct-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 28-Oct-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 28-Oct-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 21-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 21-Sep-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 21-Sep-2016

    ROPView PDF

  28. 21-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 21-Sep-2016

    ROPView PDF

  30. 23-Feb-2016

    ROPView PDF

  31. 23-Feb-2016

    ROPView PDF

  32. 31-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  33. 12-Aug-2013

    ROPView PDF

  34. 29-Nov-2012

    ROPView PDF

  35. 16-Oct-2012

    ROPView PDF

  36. 16-Oct-2012

    ROPView PDF

  37. 08-Nov-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 29-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 02-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 12-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 12-Jul-2011

    ROPView PDF

  42. 11-May-2011

    ROPView PDF

  43. 03-May-2011

    ROPView PDF

  44. 27-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  45. 31-Mar-2011

    ROPView PDF

  46. 17-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  47. 23-Feb-2011

    ROPView PDF

  48. 17-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  49. 06-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  50. 24-Nov-2010

    ROPView PDF

  51. 16-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  52. 24-Sep-2010

    ROPView PDF

  53. 14-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  54. 06-Aug-2010

    ROPView PDF

  55. 02-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  56. 14-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 14476/2024

  57. 12-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  58. 29-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  59. 08-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  60. [ 2024 INSC 980 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters

Lead case: C.A. No. 14473/2024

PDF 1PDF 2PDF 3PDF 4PDF 5PDF 6PDF 7PDF 8PDF 9PDF 10PDF 11PDF 12PDF 13PDF 14PDF 15
View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Summary: State of Rajasthan v. Vidya Devi Goyal (2024 INSC 980) Case Details - Court: Supreme Court of India - Citation: 2024 INSC 980 - Judges: J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. - Date: 13th December 2024 - Decision: Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment upheld Facts The State of Rajasthan and the Urban Improvement Trust challenged a 2009 High Court judgment that quashed land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1976 under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (RUI Act). The case involved two parcels of land in Alwar district: Nangli Kota lands and Moongaska lands, inherited by the legal heirs of late Ram Narain. Key Holdings 1. Delay in Filing Writ Petitions (Not Dismissed) The Supreme Court held that a 21-year delay in challenging the acquisition (1976-1998) should be excused because: - Constitutional right to property (Article 300A) is paramount - Delay doctrine doesn't override illegalities in acquisition procedures - Courts must balance finality with justice when fundamental rights are at stake 2. Notice Requirements under Section 52(2) - Mixed Outcome For Nangli Kota lands: Notification upheld despite improper notice service because: - Respondents participated in proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty - Participation constitutes "implied notice" - The purpose of notice—to inform and allow objections—was fulfilled For Moongaska lands: Notification invalidated because: - Two original landowners (Radhey Shyam and Manohar Lal) did not participate in proceedings - No evidence of their awareness or opportunity to be heard - Improper notice prejudiced the "right to be heard" (a mandatory procedural safeguard) 3. Compensation Payment Issues (Nangli Kota Lands) The Court found two critical violations: - Breach of Section 52(7): Possession handed to the Trust on 15.01.1981, but compensation not deposited until 31.12.1997—a 16-year delay - Breach of Section 60A(4): Compensation should have been tendered within 6 months of 01.08.1987 (by 01.02.1988) but was deposited in 1997—a 10-year violation of the mandatory statutory timeline Despite the respondents' agreement to Rs. 90,000/-, the acquisition was declared invalid due to: - Failure to pay within statutory deadlines - Taking possession before compensation payment (contra to Section 52(7)) - No satisfactory explanation for delay Legal Principles Established 1. Property Rights as Human Rights: The Court held that property rights are constitutional and human rights requiring strict procedural compliance during acquisition. 2. Timeliness is Essential: Referencing *Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram* (2024), the Court emphasized that compensation payment cannot be indefinitely delayed—time is of the essence. 3. Implied Notice Doctrine: Where landowners participate in proceedings, formal notice service may be excused, but only if actual participation is demonstrated. 4. Procedural Fairness: In compulsory acquisitions, the State must strictly follow procedures as the law is "ex-propriatory in character." Outcome - Nangli Kota lands: Acquisition notification quashed due to violation of compensation payment timelines and Section 52(7) requirements - Moongaska lands: Acquisition notification quashed due to improper notice service to all recorded owners - Appeals by the State and Urban Improvement Trust dismissed - Each party bears its own costs --- Significance: This judgment reinforces that procedural compliance in land acquisition is non-negotiable, and statutory timelines for compensation payment are mandatory rather than directory, ensuring landowners' constitutional rights are protected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case