Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 544 (RAJ)

Bharat Stone Crusher v. State of Rajasthan

1990-09-12

N.C.KOCHHAR

body1990
JUDGMENT 1. - Land measuring 1 Bigha situated in Khasra No. 715/4 of village Dhola was purchased by the partners of the petitioner firm from its previous owner Mr. Satya Prakash Goyal. The petitioner started stone crusher and erected some structures in the land in dispute and started using it for industrial purpose without obtaining the permission of the authorities. Vide Award dated 31.1.1979 the Land Acquisition Officer Jaipur acquired an area of 5 Bighas and 7 Biswas out of the total area of 6 Bighas and 2 Biswas of Khasra No. 715/4. The acquired land included the land in dispute. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per Bigha and allowed Rs. 1,000/- per Bigha by way of charges towards expenses of improving the condition of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation for the structures erected on the land in dispute on the ground that they had been unauthorisedly constructed having been constructed on the agricultural land without the permission of the authorities. The petitioner was granted 1V months time to shift the crusher to the land allotted to the petitioner by the RIICO (successor of RSMDC). The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Award was dismissed on 17.3.1980 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The Special Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge met the same fate but with the permission of the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench the petitioner removed the crusher from the land in dispute within the time finally extended by this Court vide order dated 22.8.1980. 2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner was in possession of the structures in dispute and that on 13.2.1989 the respondents were taking forcible possession of the suit land and had put their sign- boards thereon and contending that they had no right to do so and praying that they be restrained by way of a permanent injunction from dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed with a prayer that by way of a temporary injunction the respondents be restrained from taking possession of the land and structures in dispute. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed with a prayer that by way of a temporary injunction the respondents be restrained from taking possession of the land and structures in dispute. The suit is being contested by the defendants who also contested the application for temporary injunction. The learned Addl. Munsif Jaipur City Jaipur vide order dated 25.5.1989 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of temporary injunction observing that neither any prima facie case had been made out nor was the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and further that the plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss. The appeal filed by the petitioner was heard by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City Jaipur who vide the impugned order dated 16.5.1990 has agreed with the learned trial court and has consequently dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under section 115 of the Code. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the orders of the learned lower courts besides perusing the copy of the Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer as also the copy of order dated 22.8.1980 passed by the Division Bench of this Court granting final extension to the petitioner to remove the crusher from the land in dispute. 4. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the Award the Land Acquisition Officer had observed that although the petitioner was not en- titled to receive any compensation for the structures in dispute the authorities should allot to them an industrial plot as and when the plots are allotted to industries but the application moved by the petitioner had been rejected by the RIICO authorities (successor of RSMDC) and as such the possession could not be taken. Shri Gupta has contended that no injunction could be granted for the simple reason that the possession of the land and structures in dispute had already been taken by the Government on 13.2.1989 when the sign-boards had been put up on the land in dispute i.e. before filing of the suit. Shri Gupta has contended that no injunction could be granted for the simple reason that the possession of the land and structures in dispute had already been taken by the Government on 13.2.1989 when the sign-boards had been put up on the land in dispute i.e. before filing of the suit. He has further con tended that even if the possession had not been already taken the petitioner has no case inasmuch as the Government has to take possession of the land in dispute after the Award has been made and the petitioner cannot insist on remaining in possession of the land and structures in dispute. He has submitted that the application made though not in the name of the petitioner was considered but was rejected as no industrial plot was available for allotment. From the Award I find that the Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 14000/- (including Rs. 1000/- per Bigha for improvement charges) but had held that no compensation was payable to the petitioner in respect of the structures in question as they had been unauthorisedly constructed on the agricultural land. It was however observed that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner would suffer loss the RIICO should consider their application sympathetically as and when the industrial plots are allotted. If the petitioner who has admittedly been allotted one industrial plot could be considered for allotment of another industrial plot the authorities were expected to consider its application in view of the hope expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award. The application though received not in the name of the petitioner but in the name of Meena Dying & Printing Works at the address of the petitioner was admittedly considered and rejected. The petitioner cannot say that if no plot is allotted to him in view of the hope expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer he can defeat the right of the Government to take possession of the land and structures in dispute after the Award has been made. Such possession cannot be said to be without authority of law as it is to be taken in compliance with the Award. The petitioner thus has no prima facie case and as such no defect can be found in the findings of the learned trial court. 5. Such possession cannot be said to be without authority of law as it is to be taken in compliance with the Award. The petitioner thus has no prima facie case and as such no defect can be found in the findings of the learned trial court. 5. It has next been contended that before the possession of the land in dispute could be taken it was necessary for the Collector to have served at least 48 hours notice on the petitioner and also to tender to him the payment of 80% of the compensation. Reliance has been placed on the proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (the Act) and sub-section (3-A) of the above said section. This argument has to be noted for being rejected on the sole ground that those provisions relate to the acquisition of land by exercise of special powers of urgency when possession is taken before making of the Award. Admittedly in this case the Award has already been made and possession is to be taken in terms of section 16 of the Act. No provision has been brought to my notice which required that even in case where possession is taken after making of the Award any notice is to be served to the person concerned or any amount is to be offered to him. The amount already assessed for the land in dispute by the Land Acquisition Officer may be claimed by the petitioner from the authorities in accordance with law. 6. No other point has been raised before me. 7. This revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.Revision dismissed with costs. *******