Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 614 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra Meghwal v. Union of India

2005-02-23

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner is a Khatedar tenant of Murabba No. 278/438 in Chak No. 6-7 PGM, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. Without acquiring the petitioners land, the same was used as a way during the period 1986-1987 as the respondents had to repair a bridge situated near the petitioners land. 3. According to the petitioner, by the use of land by the respondents, the land stood totally damaged and now it cannot be used for agriculture purposes. The petitioner, therefore, claims that he may be a awarded compensation for this land equivalent to the cost of land which could have been awarded in case the land would have been awarded in case the land would have been acquired by the respondents. In the alternative, the petitioner prayed that he may be given alternate land in lieu of the land used and damaged by the respondents. 4. The Union of India submitted reply to the writ petition and admitted this fact that the land of the petitioner was used in the year 1986-1987 and the respondents had no intention to acquire the land as the land was not needed for any purpose. It is also submitted that because of urgent necessity, the petitioners land was used temporarily only and for that purpose, rent can be paid to the petitioner. The respondents also pleaded that due to emergent situation and for want of immediate repair of bridge, the land was used and they have not caused any damage to the petitioners land. 5. The admitted fact is that the petitioners land was used by Union of India, may it be for temporary period, but at the same time, they have not paid compensation to the petitioner for that period. Even if there was reason for using the petitioners land, then the land should not have been damaged to the extent which the petitioner alleges and if the allegations are true. 6. In these circumstances, only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is that the petitioner may submit his representation before the respondent No. 1 to 4 raising all his claims and may submit proof in support of the claim. 6. In these circumstances, only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is that the petitioner may submit his representation before the respondent No. 1 to 4 raising all his claims and may submit proof in support of the claim. On receiving the representation, the respondents No. 1 to 4 may decide the same after enquiring into the petitioners claim and in case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, the same may be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner. The petitioner may submit representation within a direction to one month from today. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of .