Jit Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

rajasthan urban improvement trust act, 1959 - section 52(2)--acquisition of land--notices not served, individually on owners--held, they are deprived of their right to raise objections against acquisition.;notices under sub-section (2) of section 52 are required to be served individually on the owners, it is only when the owners are served individually then they would be in a position to show cause against the intended acquisition. if noticrs are not served individually, then the owners would be deprived of their valuable right to raise objections against the acquisition.;writ allowed - 1. these writ petitions raise a common question of law, so, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the notices issued to the petitioners under sub-section (2) of section 52 of the rajasthan urban improvement trust, 1959 (here in after referred to 'as the act'). the proceedings have been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices under sub-section (2) of section 52 have not been served on the petitioners the notices are said to have been served by affixure. such service is no service in the eye of law. no reasons have been assigned for affixure off the notices nor there is any return to the notice to the effect as to in what circumstances, the notices have affixed. in the absence of such necessary requirements, the service of notices on the petitioners is invalid and is no service in the eye of law.3. we have perused the notices and we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. under sub-section (2) of section 5 the requirement is that before publishing a notice under sub-section (1) the owners of the land are required to be served with notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should no be acquired. it is further provided that such notice shall be individual served upon the owners of the land. it would appear from the language section 52(2) of the act that notices under sub-section (2) of section 52 required to be served individually on the owners. it is only when the own are served individually then they would be in a position to show cause against the intended acquisition. if notices are not served individually, then he owners would be deprived of their valuable right to raise objections against the acquisition. as we have found that the notices have not been properly served on the petitioners, so, the same deserve to be quashed. it is not necessary to go into the other objections raised by the petitioners in.....