Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1877 (RAJ)

Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-08-25

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - Since these writ petitions arise out of the same factual matrix and raise an identical set of legal issues, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts are being taken from the case of Ramji Lal Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4704/2006 . Since the facts are similar, the facts of other writ petitions need not be narrated. 3. According to the petitioners, on 04.12.2001 a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short) was issued. According to the Notification, since the UIT, Ajmer needed land for establishing the Prithviraj Nagar Yojana, the petitioners' land was being acquired. The petitioners filed their objections under Section 5(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on 15.09.2003, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. On 13.07.2005, a draft award was submitted to the Government. 4. Since acquisition of land has created lot of heart burn in the State, since certain issues were raised about regularisation of land which is subject matter of acquisition, on 26.05.2000, the State Government had taken certain decision. According to the circular dated 26.05.2000, the State Government had decided as under:- " ,sls izdj.k ftuesa lacaf/kr uxj fodkl U;k;@LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk vokfIr dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gS rFkk ftlesa vokMZ ds vuqlkj eqvkotk jkf'k ds pSd LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk tkjh fd;k tkdj lacaf/kr [kkrsnkj vFkok fdlh l{ke vnkyr esa tek djok fn;k x;k gks rks ,sls izdj.kksa esa jktdh; Hkwfe ekudj ml {ks= dh vkoklh; vkjf{kr nj dh 25 izfr'kr jkf'k fu;eu 'kqYd ds :i esa ysdj fu;eu fd;k tk ldsxkA ;gka ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ftu izdj.kksa esa vokMZ tkjh fd;k tk pqdk gS ijUrq eqvkotk Hkqxrku dh jkf'k dk pSd LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk [kkrsnkj ;k l{ke U;k;ky; dks tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gS] mu izdj.kksa esa lkekU; fu;eu nj ykxw gksxhA " 5. Since the petitioners wanted to take benefit of the said circular, they filed applications for regularisation of their land before the UIT, Ajmer. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, a decision was taken on 20.05.2006 whereby the petitioners' applications were rejected. The UIT did not even bother to individually inform the petitioners about the rejection of their applications. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, a decision was taken on 20.05.2006 whereby the petitioners' applications were rejected. The UIT did not even bother to individually inform the petitioners about the rejection of their applications. Instead, it published a notice in the local newspaper making a public announcement that since the land of the petitioners falls within the Prithviraj Nagar Yojana, since the regularisation would adversely affect the proceeding under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act, therefore, their applications are being dismissed. Hence, these petitions before this Court. 6. The learned counsels for the petitioners have raised the same set of contentions namely that under the circulars dated 26.05.2000 & 16.02.2002 certain concessions were made by the Government with regard to those cases which were subject matter of the acquisition. Thus, under these circulars, the petitioners were entitled to have their cases considered for regularisation. Secondly, their cases have to be considered objectively. Thirdly, before rejecting their applications, the UIT was legally bound to give them an opportunity of hearing. However, in the present case, no such opportunity was afforded individually to the petitioners. Therefore, the order dated 20.05.2006 is in violation of principle of natural justice. Fourthly, the citizens do have a legitimate expectations that an instrumentality of the State like the UIT would pass an order in accordance with law. Since the circulars entitled the petitioners for having their land regularized, the UIT is duty bound to give reasons for denying them the benefits of these circulars. Fifthly, the order dated 20.05.2006 is a non-speaking order. Sixthly, the order dated 20.05.2006 suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. For, the cases of the petitioners have to be decided individually. Since each case would have its own peculiar facts and circumstances, all the applications could not have been decided by a common order. Thus, the non-application of mind is writ large. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Parag Rastogi, the learned counsel for the UIT, had defended the impugned order on the following grounds : firstly, the UIT has regularised the land of only those landholders whose land did not fall within the land acquisition proceeding. Secondly, it did not regularise the land of those landholders whose land falls within the acquisition proceeding. Parag Rastogi, the learned counsel for the UIT, had defended the impugned order on the following grounds : firstly, the UIT has regularised the land of only those landholders whose land did not fall within the land acquisition proceeding. Secondly, it did not regularise the land of those landholders whose land falls within the acquisition proceeding. He has relied upon a report submitted by the Commissioner, dated 28.02.2007, to buttress his contention that only those land have been regularised which did not fall within the acquisition proceeding. Thirdly, a decision was taken by the UIT on 29.01.2001 to constitute a committee and to refer the cases of those landholders whose land was falling in the plots through which a road has to be constructed and where the construction was made by the landholders, and the cases of those whose land was falling within the Prithviraj Nagar Yojana and from whom the applications had been received. Although the applications were received from the petitioners, according to the learned counsel for the UIT, their applications could not be forwarded to the Committee constituted by the UIT on 29.01.01 as there was a stay order of this Court. Therefore, he has tried to justified the order dated 20.05.2006. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as submitted before this court. 9. Of course, under the Land Acquisition Act the State has the power of eminent domain to acquire the land for public purpose. However, the State, in its wisdom, has made certain concessions through circulars dated 26.05.2000, 16.02.2002, 16.10.2007 & lastly 02.11.2007. According to these circulars, even if the acquisition proceeding is complete, even if the compensation amount has been issued by the local authority to the Khatedar, or has been deposited before a Court, even then the landholder would be entitled to regularisation provided he pays 25% of the reserved price of the land. Even in case where the award has been passed and no compensation amount has been issued, even then such cases would be considered for regularisation. Thus, the landholders are entitled to have their cases considered for regularisation under circular dated 26.05.2000. In order to take benefit of this circular, the petitioners had applied before the UIT. 10. According to the decision dated 29.01.2001, such applications should have been referred to the Committee constituted on 29.01.2001. Thus, the landholders are entitled to have their cases considered for regularisation under circular dated 26.05.2000. In order to take benefit of this circular, the petitioners had applied before the UIT. 10. According to the decision dated 29.01.2001, such applications should have been referred to the Committee constituted on 29.01.2001. However, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners' applications were, in fact, placed before the said Committee. The order dated 20.05.2006 has been issued by Special Officer (Land) UIT, Ajmer. In the said order, the officer does not mention the fact that the applications filed by the petitioners were placed before the Committee. Thus, the UIT has not followed the procedure that itself had established in its decision dated 29.01.2001. 11. A bare perusal of the order dated 20.05.2006 clear shows that only two reasons have been given for dismissing the applications. Firstly, petitioners' land falls within the Prithviraj Nagar Yojana i.e. its subject matter of acquisition. Secondly, any decision taken in favour of the petitioners would adversely affect the decision taken in the proceeding under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act. However, the said order does not give any reason for denying to the petitioners the benefit of the circulars issued by the Government. Moreover, it does not reveal as to how a decision taken in a proceeding under Section 90-B would be adversely affected in case the petitioners' land were regularized. Thus, the order dated 20.05.2006 is a non-speaking order. 12. Since each petitioner would have his own peculiar facts and circumstances dealing with his own parcel of land, it is rather surprising that all the applications have been decided by a common order. Since the facts would be unique to each case, a carte blanche order should not have been passed. Therefore, the order dated 20.05.2006 clearly suffers from non-application of mind. In fact the UIT is expected to pass individual orders dealing with individual person. 13. The UIT has to be aware of the fact that it is a facet of a welfare State. Therefore, it is under a constitutional duty to protect and promote the interest of the people. The citizens do have a legitimate expectation that the UIT would function in accordance with law. Therefore, the UIT is duty bound to consider the benefit to which the petitioners are entitled to under the circulars. Therefore, it is under a constitutional duty to protect and promote the interest of the people. The citizens do have a legitimate expectation that the UIT would function in accordance with law. Therefore, the UIT is duty bound to consider the benefit to which the petitioners are entitled to under the circulars. Any action of the UIT which is unfair, unjust and unreasonable would not only violate the right under the doctrine of legitimate expectations, but more importantly would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 20.05.2006 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioners are directed to file their individual representations before the UIT in support of their applications which were earlier filed before the UIT. The UIT is directed to deal with each case on an individual basis, and to pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of six months from the date of receipt of their representations. The UIT is prohibited form dispossessing the petitioners till the decision is taken upon their representations and applications. In case any adverse order is passed against any of the petitioner(s), the person shall be free to file a fresh writ petition before this Court. 15. With these observations, these writ petitions are, hereby, allowed. No costs.writ petitions allowed *******