Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 945 (RAJ)

K. S. Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-30

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the DLC has not been held at the time of notification under Section 4 (1) issued to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner represented before the respondents to hold the DLC meeting. The representation of the petitioner was accepted and the DLC has reviewed the market rate but it was made effective from 17.08.2004. 3. Aggrieving with the cut off date the petitioner filed this present petition and submits that since the DLC has revised the market rate on the representation filed by the petitioner, therefore, he should be given benefit of revision and the revision should be made effective from 23.01.2003. 4. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Garg submits that the DLC rates are not binding for awarding compensation, even otherwise the petitioner is at liberty to represent before the Land Acquisition Officer and other competent authorities with regard to the prevailing market rate, which may be higher than the rate fixed by the DLC. But it is for the petitioner to prove the prevailing market rate of the land. 5. He further submits that the DLC is fixed to assess the market value for the purpose of stamp duties, it cannot be made basis for compensation. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties, I fully agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is at liberty to prove his case to show that prevailing market rate is much higher than the DLC rates and if he is able to prove, certainly he is entitled to get compensation at the rate of prevailing market rate as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this High Court in various Judgment s. 7. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner do not impress the Court and rather against the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the liberty is given to the petitioner to prove his case regarding prevailing market rate with the help of registered documents of the lands situated nearby the land in question. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .