Om Prakash and 2 Others v. State of Rajasthan — 1995 DIGILAW 827 (RAJ)

Honble SINGHAL, J. – This Judgment shall dispose of all the above numbered writ petitions as the point involed is inter-connected .In the writ petition of Om Prakash vs. State, writ petition No.4586/89 the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings with regard to notification issued u/s 52 (2) of the Urban Improvement Act dated 24.3.1973 and Sec. 52(1) dated 11.7.1974 by which the land of the village Bhojpura and Bhawani Shanker Pura were acquired with the prayer that the same may be declared to have lapsed and the further proceedings with regard to the acquisition of the said land and also from passing any award may be restrained . It is further prayed that the Land Acquisition Officer may be directed not to pass the award as he has no jurisdiction. The last proceeding conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer have also been prayed to the quashed. It is further submitted that since the acquisition proceedings in the present case were initiated by the Town Planning Department the same is liable to be quashed and the land of the society be -Acquired and regularised in accordance with the circular issued by the State Government and examples of other cases or to allot plot to the members of the society so that they may be rehabilitated by allotment of alternate plots the land in question .Besides the State of Rajasthan the Land Acquisition Officer U.I.T. Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti were made as respondents. (2) In the writ petition of Radhey Shyam Sodani writ petition No. 7311/1993, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be equally divided between the mem- bers and the members should not be debarred from the member-ship only on technical objections that they did not deposit the enhanced fee of member-ship even when the huge amount is lying deposited with the society and the amount could be utilised by the society for meeting out the enhanced fee of member -ship and compensation as prayed to be distributed on the basis of reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The State of Rajasthan, Land Acquisition Officer, New Bank of India and Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti have been made respondents to the writ petition. (3) In the writ petition No. 3006/1994 Radhey Shyam Sodani vs.State, prayer is made that a plot of 500 sq. yds. The State of Rajasthan, Land Acquisition Officer, New Bank of India and Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti have been made respondents to the writ petition. (3) In the writ petition No. 3006/1994 Radhey Shyam Sodani vs.State, prayer is made that a plot of 500 sq. yds. may be directed to be allotted in Rambagh or Raj- mahal Palace area in the scheme framed by the respondents at such prices which may be deemed reasonable by the JDA in accodance with the provisions of Sec. 50 of UIT Act. The action of the President and Secretary of the Society have been alleged to be collusive with JDA and Land Acquisition Officer and it is submitted that the JDA and Land Acquisition Officer have committed a contempt of the order dated 23.10.1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 4586/89 in which it is prayed that they should be punished under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for committing contempt of the order of this Court. (4) A writ petition No. 7226/1993 in the name of R.S. Sodani vs. State decided on 9.5.1994 (1), was submitted earlier in which prayer made that the auction pro- ceedings of the Land be declared illegal and the State and JDA be directed to allot the land or part there of to the members of the society .In this case also the State of Rajasthan JDA and Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti were the respondents. The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,OOO/- and the contention of the petitioner that 300 members of the society be allotted the plot was negatived. It has not been brought to the notice of Court that this judgment was challenged before this Court in DB or before the Apex Court. (5) From the above writ petitions which have been filed ,it is evident that one after the other the petitions are being filed including in respect of those matters which have already been adjudicated i.e. the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of alternate plot was earlier rejected in writ petition No. 7226/1993 .It may also be observed that the present litigation is the second round of litigation as would be evident from the facts given below that the land of khasra No. 111 in village Bhojpura and part of Khasra No. 72 and 77 in village Bhawani Shankerpura, Sanganer,Tehsil Jaipur, measuring 349330x sq.yds. was purchased by Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti for a sum of Rs. 10200000/-by a registered sale-deed dated 29.3.1972 and registered on 3.4.1972.About 278 persons are stated to be the members of the society of which the list has been placed on record .In the earlier round of litigation the matter with regard to the acquisition proceedings was challenged before this Court and thereafter it was decided by the Apex Court in the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and others vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.(2). In this case the Apex Court considered that private property of Maharaja of Jaipur and Rambagh area and Raj Mahal area comprising of 349330 sq. yds.was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10200000 by three deeds. A plan for development of land for 500 residential plots was prepared. The State Government issued notice u/s 52(2) on 24.3.1973 .The officer on special duty Town Planning Department. Government of Rajasthan, heard the objections and submitted his report dated 2.4.1974 for consideration of the State Government. The State Government rejected the objections and issued two notifications dated 11.7.1974 u/s 52(1) of the Act which were published on 27.9.1974 .An objection was taken that framing of scheme by the trust under Chapter V of the Act is sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Act. This contention was negatived. Another objection was raised that the requisite scheme u/s 52(1) was not drawn by the State Government to frame a de- tailed scheme or development plan before exercising pwer u/s 52(1) .It was also argued that the award was not made within 2 years from 1.8.1987 and therefore the proceedings have lapsed. This contention was also rejected. The last contention which was raised that the subject matter of acquisition includes polo ground which is used for one of the major sports peculiar to Rajasthan and is a public purpose. This contention was also rejected by observing that the comparative utility of the public purpose cannot be gone into and once, it is found that the declaration is for public purpose no fault can be found with the proceedings on the ground that the land is already used for some beneficial purpose. The observation was also made that the Officer on Special Duty who heard the objection has given the ample oppo- rtunity the appeal was dismissed . The observation was also made that the Officer on Special Duty who heard the objection has given the ample oppo- rtunity the appeal was dismissed . (6) It may be observed that in SLP preferred by the Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, the contention was raised that the Officer on Special Duty has assumed the power of the State Government and that Shri Shubh Karan Hada was not competent to act u/s 52(3) of the Act. The allegation that there are naumber of instances where notifications were issued u/s 52 of the Improvement Act and land vested in the State and there after the land directed to be de-acquired or released since the land belonged to Housing Society was also raised. The special appeal was dismissed. (7) Mr. Bapna appearing on behalf of the income-tax Department has pointed out that in this matter proceedings u/s 226(3) of the Income Tax Act have been taken by the department for recovery of the Income Tax dues which are said to be the tune of Rs. 8,85,00,000 against Bhawani Singh. Ex-ruler of Jaipur State . (8) Since,it was found that all these writ petitions are inter- connected, therefore the argument of learned counsel for the parties are heard. All these writ petitions are now disposed of by this common judgment. In writ petition No. 4586/89 though it is mentioned that the notices for acquisition was issued by Shri Shubh Karan Hada, Officer on Special Duty, Town Planning Department, but the Khasra numbers were not specified as it was only for the land around residency area which was to be acquired and this appears from the order-sheet dated 23.3.1973. (9) The main point which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer JDA and not by the SDO -cum-Collector, Land Acquisition Officer. It is stated that on 19.4.1973, the Land Acquisition Officer of the Urban Improvement Trust had not conducted the execution proceedings.An objection against the jurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty Shri Karan Hada, who was appointed as Collector and was the only Land Acquisition Officer was raised which was rejected by him because he was the Officer on Special Duty and had the jurisdiction. The order which is without jurisdiction is nullity. The order which is without jurisdiction is nullity. The State Government has not transferred the land to the JDA nor the Land Acquisition Oficer of the JDA was authorised to hand- over the land to the JDA. (10) On behalf of the respondents it is stated that the writ petition filed by Om Prakash is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the JDA which is a necessary party has not been impleaded. It is stated that no objection was raised before the Land Acquisition Officer regarding his jurisdiction by Shri Om Prakash in his capacity as a member of the Samiti and since the acquisition proceedings have been up-held by the Apex Court and award has been passed and the possession of the land had been taken and amount of compensation has also been paid the ame- ndment which has been moved in the year 1993 to amend the writ petition is an effort to overcome the decision given in this very matter by the Apex Court. (11) So far as the question of jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer is concerned initially vide order dated 1.8.1968 of the Town Planning Department Shri R.L. Dabi was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer in the UIT.By order dated 28.8. 1968 power was conferred u/s 3(Ga) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act,1953 on Shri R.L. Dabi for acquisition of land of Improvement Trust Jaipur as Collector .On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Collector Land Acquisition was appointed under the Central Land Acquisition Act. 1894 who is S.D.O. Jaipur area, vide order dated 2.5.1987 in Gazette on 25.6.1987 in which all the SDOs-cum-Land Acquisition Officers were appointed to perform the function of Collector under clause 3 (c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that the Collector Land Acquisition for the Rajasthan Housing Board is different who is called on Special duty and so the Land Acquisition Officers, PWD are also different who are called the Land Acquisition Officers, PWD Jaipur and since the acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the State Government for the purpose of State Government the SDO cum Collector, Land Acquisition, Jaipur alone has the Jurisdiction. (12) A decision in the case of Major S Arjan Singh and anither vs. The State of Punjab and others (3), has been relied wherein the expression `collector was considered which means the Collector of a district and includes a Deputy Commi- ssioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate government to perform functions of a Collector. On the basis of this it was found that at the relevant time Shri Dalip Singh was the Collector and when he was suspended Shri Babu Ram issued a notice u/ss. 9 and 10 of the Act and gave the award u/s 11 of the Act. Shri Babu Ram was neither the Collector, nor the Deputy Commissioner nor was specifically authorised by the Government. In these circumstances, the award was set aside. A decision as in the case of A.V. Vijayarangam, A.Balakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (4), was also relied wherein it was held by the Madras High Court that the enquiry conducted by an officer not authorised by Appropriate Government to perform functions of Collector is without jurisdiction and illegal. Similar view was taken in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Kalahandi vs. Saroj Kumar Biswal (5), by Madras High Court wheren it was observed that the officer concerned who has not been appointed as Collector by the appropriate government then his proceedings are without jurisdiction. (13) In the case of Mayapati and Anr. vs. The State of Haryana and Ors. (6), the proceedings conducted by lthe General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon u/s 5-A of the Act, were held without jurisdiction as it was found that for making the report after hearing the objection of the persons interested it is only the Collector who can exercise that power . The proceedings from the stage of Sec. 5-A were quashed . (14) A decision of this Court in the case of Mela Ram and others vs.State of Rajasthan & Others (7) was also relied upon to show that the officer authorised to certify its orders means authorisation under the Rules of Business of the State fra- med under Article 166 of the Constitution and the Collector having no such authority could not make the declaration u/s 6. The power could be delegated u/s 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act by the State Government and since no power has been conferred on any officer or authority constituted and was appointed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the declaration u/s 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was declared invalid. (15) A decision of Apex Court in the case of Isabella Johnson (Smt.) vs.M.A. Susai(Dead) by LRs. (8), has also been relied wherein it was observed that the principle of resjudicata is not applicable to the erroneous decision of jurisdiction. The court which has no jurisdiction under law cannot be conferred that jurisdiction of applying the principles of resjudicata. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel on a pure question of law and the question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. A decision of this court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. Ratna (9), has also been relied to show that new plea as to lack of jurisdiction of the matter can be raised at any stage as it does not require investigation of facts. (16) It is submitted that even after the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter fresh petition could be filed as has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar and others vs. UOI and other (10), wherein it was observed that the powers have been exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations or reasons and the respondents have not come forward to explain the delay or non- payment of compensation would show that there is no continuity of action from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act and there had been a deep gap again throwing doubts of the bonafides on the respondents. The acquisition proceedings were declared invalid . (17) In the case of Ram Chand and others (11), the acquisition proceedings are not quashed because the development of the land had already taken place and was put to the public use . The land was found utilised to provide shelter to thousands and to implement the scheme of a planned city .It is submitted that in the present case there is neither any development nor it has been put to public use. (18) It is stated that the appointment of the Collector Land Acquisition has to be by the State Government and by other authority. (18) It is stated that the appointment of the Collector Land Acquisition has to be by the State Government and by other authority. It is submitted that the validity can be challenged at any stage. If the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction or power to allot part of the acquired land or any other land in lieu of compensation to the land owner, the decree incorporating direction in the award for allotment of such land would be a nullity and the land owner can challenge the decree as being nullity at the stage of execution. The decision in the case of Jaipur Development Authority vs. Radhey Shyam and others (12), has been relied for that purpose. (19) For the purpose of allotment of plot to the members of the society it is submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Hansraj H. Jain vs. State of Maharashtra and others (13), has held that the alternative site as per scheme framed be given to the affected land owner on the basis of actual cost of development by charging the cost of the acquisition and development charges and no more. The relief was given even to those petitioners in the SLP including for review petitions which were dismissed earlier. A decision in the case of State of U.P vs. Pista Devi and others (14), has also been relied where the Apex Court observed that since the land is being acquired for providing housing accommodation to the people of Meerut those who are being expropriated on account of the acquisition proceedings would also be eligible for some relief at the hands of Meerut Development Authority. The provision of Sec.21(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was also taken into consideration and it was observed ``we are of the view that the above provision of Delhi Development Act contains a wholesome peinciple in which should be followed by all development authorities throughout the country when they acquirelarge tracts of land for the purpose of land development in urban areas.In the case of S.B. Kishore vs. Union if India and other (15), claimant approached the High Court after 19 years and the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court .It was held that the delay should be over looked and the claim be considered. (20) In the case of Karjan Jalasay Yojana Assargasth Sahkar Ane Sangarsh Samiti vs. State of Gujrat and others (16), when the matter was considered on an application for vacating the stay with regard to construction of dam it was observed by the Apex Court that the human problem arising out of displacement of large numbers of tribals and others belonging to weaker section as a result acquisition should also be considered. Directions were also given in the case of Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others (17), the appellant/petitioner who has become landless on account of acquisition of land makes an application for the allotment of land the HSIDC shall consider such application and give him priority in the matter of allotment provided he fulfills the conditions for such allotment and plot is available. In the case of Uttar Pradesh Residents Employees Cooperative House Building Society and Others vs. The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another (18), the Apex Court directed for rehabilitation of the persons whose land was acquired. (21) It is also submitted that since the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act has been repealed ,the award could not have been passed and reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of the Belsand Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Thakur Girja Nandan Singh (19), Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others, (20), and Kiran Singh and others, vs.Chaman Paswan and others (21). (22) Learned counsel for the JDA has submitted that petitioner Om Prakash has never raised any objection before the Land Acquisition Officer regarding his jurisdiction in his capacity as a member of Gandhi Nirman Samiti Ltd. It is stated that once the proceedings have been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court and the award has been passed and possession of the land has been taken and compensation has also been paid , the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the question about the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is stated that u/s 21 and 99 CPC and Sec. 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, when the matter was conside- red by Apex Court in Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others (22), that the objection would not be allowed to be raised unless there has been a prejudice in merit .In the case of Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. vs. P..J. Pappu and another (23) , it was observed that if the defendant allows the trial court to proceed to judgment without raising the objection as to the place of suit and takes the cha- nce of verdict in his favour he clearly walves the objection and will not be subsequently permitted to raise it. It is even possible to say that long and continued participation by the defendant in the proceedings without any prejudice may , in an appropriate case amount to a waiver of the objection . (23) The amendment in the writ petition of Om Prakash is stated to have been allowed on 12.3.1993 when the JDA was not impleaded as party .Now another application has been moved which is not maintainable .The acquisition proceedings have already been upheld by the Apex Court and the SLP of Gandhi Grah Nirman Samiti has also been dismissed . An objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer which is now by Gandhi Grah NirmanSakari Sahkari Samiti cannot be raised by them as in the objection which was submitted before the Acquisition Officer on 19.4.1973 , no such objection was raised and the objection for the first time was raised on 16.6.1989 . It is stated that in para 14 of the SLP submitted by the Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. `that because the High Court should have held that Subhkaran Hada was not competent to act under Section 52 (3) of the Act,this objection was not pressed before the Apex Court and, therefore, cannot be allowed to be raised now. The possession of the land has already been given on 2.11.1993 by the Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and the Secretary has signed the `FARD KABJA A sum of Rs. 82 lacs has also been accepted and no objection was raised by the Samiti and as such the member cannot be allowed to raise the objection. It is stated that the power of the Collector has been delegated to all the SDOs. and Land Acquisition Officers `NAGARIYA VIKAS PARIYOJHA, Jaipur. The acquisition has become final as the complete land has been taken over by the JDA which is the owner u/s 54 of the JDA Act and direction of development had already been given. The conceptual plan has been made after following the process of law. and Land Acquisition Officers `NAGARIYA VIKAS PARIYOJHA, Jaipur. The acquisition has become final as the complete land has been taken over by the JDA which is the owner u/s 54 of the JDA Act and direction of development had already been given. The conceptual plan has been made after following the process of law. It is also stated that an objection was raised that the land is used for a public purpose, namely polo ground and the Apex Court held that `we cannot go into the comparative utility of the public purposes. Once we are sati- sfied that the acquisition is for public purposes, no fault can be found with the proceedings on the ground that the land has already been used for some beneficial purposes. (24) It has been brought to the notice of this Court that Shri R.S. Sodaniwas Secretary of the Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd and even the affidavit which was filed along with SLP was of his and in writ petition No.4586/1989 certain documents have been tried to be produced on record by making the Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. as respondent with regard to jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer . (25) I have considered over the matter . The various points which have been raised are adjudicated as under :– 1. Jurisdiction :– In this regad it may be observed that a SLP was filed by Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., who had purchased the land by registered sale-deed and are the owner/person interested . The petition- ers have not submitted any documents by which the land was allotted to the members and so far as Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. is concerned , in the SLP the objection was raised with regard to jurisdiction of Shri Hada, but it was not pressed and therefore, it cannot be considered now. It my however be observed that the com- pensation was paid to the society through its Secretary and the compensation of the land has also been taken. The land now vests with the JDA and as such the members of the society cannot ralso the grievance with regard to the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer. It my however be observed that the com- pensation was paid to the society through its Secretary and the compensation of the land has also been taken. The land now vests with the JDA and as such the members of the society cannot ralso the grievance with regard to the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer. Not only that it was observed by the Apex Court that the Divi- sion Bench of this Court has held after discussing the material in detail found that ample opportunity of hearing was given to Col.Bhawani Singh by the Officer on Special Duty who heard the objections. The High Court further held that the objections raised by the Samiti were fully considered by the said officer. We find no infir- mity in the binding of the High Court and agree with the same . If the proceedings have been continued by the samer officer or his successor on the same basis them for the reasons given by the Apex Court in the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, the Samiti cannot raise the objection again and with regard to members as observed above, it has not come on record that any piece of land was allotted to them they cannot claim any right . It may also be observed that the JDA was not impleaded as respondent and it was by the direction of this Court that the notice were issued to the Advocate for JDA and Mr. Rastogi has produced the record which has also been perused .Mr. Rastogi has pointed out that the objection with regard to jurisdiction has been taken by Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and not by the petitioner . The respondents have no right to raise the objection . It is also stated that there is no prejudice shown to have been caused to the petitioner .In this regard it may be observed that the entire proceedings appear to be of a collusive nature . The respondents have no right to raise the objection . It is also stated that there is no prejudice shown to have been caused to the petitioner .In this regard it may be observed that the entire proceedings appear to be of a collusive nature . When Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti has not been able to get the relief on the point of jurisdiction before the Apex Court or for that reason, it might not been pressed before the Apex Court, the petitioner Radhey Shyam Sodani and Om Prakash who were the Secretary of the then Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkar Samiti have filed these writ petitions and made the Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti as respondents and objections have been raised now through the respondents which cannot be allowed and are not maintainable on account of the principles of resjudicata and also for the reason that the owners participated in the proceedings and the prejudice has not been shown. The only thing which is said is that the Land Acquisition officer was in the influence of the JDA. This contention cannot be accepted because the action of the Land Acquisition Officer given under the JDA Act is of a quasi- judicial nature and he has to be fair and impartial. No reason or instance have been shown by which it could be presumed that he was influenced by the JDA. The decisions which have been relied in the case of Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan (supra) and Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd Vs. P.J. Pappu & anr. (supra) are also au- thorities on the point that the plea of jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be agitated when everything has come to an end. It may be observed that the petitioners have claimed to be members of the society, buy it has not been shown that any land was allotted to them and for that reason they have any right. If and amount is remaining with the society or the society intends to purchase any other land the allotment could be made from that piece of land , but the acquisition proceedings which have been concluded in the present case cannot be quashed on the ground of jurisdiction . 2. Allotment of Alternative Land : – This matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of JDA Vs. 2. Allotment of Alternative Land : – This matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of JDA Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra), and it was observed that the Land Acquisition Officer has no power or jurisdiction to allot the Land in lieu of compensation, the decree, if any u/s 18 to the extent of any recognition of the directions in the award for allotment of land given u/s 11 is nullity . It is open to the respondents to raise invalidity, nullity of the decree in execution in that behalf. The execution proceedings, directing delivery of possession of the land as contained in the award were invalid, void and inexectable and were set aside. It may also be noted that power has been given u/s 31 to the Collector who with the prior sanction of the appropriate Government intead of awarding money compensation in respect of the acquired land, he could make any arrangement with the person who is having only a limited interest in such land either by grant of other land in exchange or remittance of the land revenue on other such land held under the same file or any other way having regard to the interest of the parties concerned. It was held that the prior sanction of the appropriate government for that purpose is necessary. In the present case there is neither any sanction nor the petitioners have been able to point out any right on the basis of which they could claim the compensation, the directions for allotment of land to the members of the society cannot be given. It has been held by the Apex Court that even the prayer of the society that the land is being used for another public purpose was turned down by the Apex Court by observing that the comparative utility of the public purpose cannot be considered. The acquisition of land was considered for public purpose and no fault was found in the proceedings. Even the use of the land for come beneficial purpose was not considered appropriate to quash the acquisition proceedings. If the acqusition proceedings have been concluded and the possession of the land has been taken then neither from the said land nor from any other land any right of the members of the society can be said to have accrued. 3. If the acqusition proceedings have been concluded and the possession of the land has been taken then neither from the said land nor from any other land any right of the members of the society can be said to have accrued. 3. Payment of Compensation to the members :– In this regard it may be observed that there are huge are out-standings of the Income -Tax Department against Col. Bhawani Singh and it is stated that proceedings have already been taken u/s 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act and as such the amount which is to be paid by the society to Col. Bhawani Singh will be required to be remitted to Income Tax Department. There may be a situation,where after dis- charging the obligation by the society of purchase consideration, something is left with the society , for that purpose, it may be observed that the society is working at no profit and no loss basis and therefore whatever proceeds remain could not be utilised by the society for any other purpose and have to be distributed to its mem- bers. At this stage when the claim is made by the Income Tax Department the direction cannot be given. It may also be observed that contradictory claims have been made. In writ petition No. 7311/1993 the amount of compensation is prayed to be equally divided by Shri R.S.Sodani while in writ petition No. 3360/94 the prayer was made for allotment of plots. Shri R.S. Sodani had been Secretary of the Society and when in the earlier proceedings before this Court before Apex Court, the acquisition proceedings were upheld . Even in Writ Petition No. 7226/93 the prayer for allotment of land was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2000/- In writ petition No. 3006/94 a note has been given that no such writ petition has previously been filed before this Honble Court or before the Honble Supreme Court of India. So far as Apex Court is concerned, it was filed by the society and Shri Sodani was only the Secretary. In this writ petition No. 3006/94 prayer is made as under:– (a) petitioner may kindly be allotted a plot of land in Ram Bagh or Raj Mahal Palace area measuring minimum 500 sq. So far as Apex Court is concerned, it was filed by the society and Shri Sodani was only the Secretary. In this writ petition No. 3006/94 prayer is made as under:– (a) petitioner may kindly be allotted a plot of land in Ram Bagh or Raj Mahal Palace area measuring minimum 500 sq. yards within the scheme framed by the respondents at such price mandated by section 60 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act and further upheld by the Apex Court in the authorities cited above : In writ petition No. 7226/93 filed by Radhey Shyam Sodani, the prayer is as under :– `` JDA may also be directed to allot plots of land to 300 members of the society and to allow respondent No. 3 to develop the land as per the directions of the JDA in preference to the outsiders like develo- pers and bidders on the land belonging to the respondent No. 3 (society) From the above, it is evident that the prayer of allotment of land which was made in the writ petition No. 7226/93 is same and thus to say on affidavit that no writ petition has previously been filed, the petitioner has filed a wrong affidavit in support of his petition and is liable for prosecution. The Addl. Registrar (Admn. ) is directed to file a complaint before the appropriate court having the jurisdiction. (26) The above three points which have been raised have been considered and it is found that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. There had been mumber of litigations with regard to acquisition of this prime land and it appears that the delay on the part of the respondents in not immediately implementing the development programme immediately . The acquisition of land has already been found in accordance with law by the Apex Court and consequently the award which has been passed by the Land Acquisition officer cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction. The compensation has already been accepted by the society and the possession of land has also been handed over . (27) In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case is made out for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction . All the above numbered writ petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. The compensation has already been accepted by the society and the possession of land has also been handed over . (27) In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case is made out for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction . All the above numbered writ petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- each which shall be deposited by the petitioners with in a period of one month with the Secretary , Legal Aid Board. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid Board.