Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 363 (RAJ)

Prem Kumari Garg v. State of Raj

2010-02-15

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Since these writ petitions arise out of the same factual matrix and raise identical set of legal issues, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts are being taken from the case of Shabuddin & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1132/2010. Since the facts are similar, the facts of other writ petitions need not be narrated. 3. According to the petitioners, 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, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published and a draft award was submitted to the Government. 4. Since acquisition of land had caused lot of heartburn in the State, since certain issues were raised about regularisation of land which is subject matter of acquisition, on 26.5.2000, the State Government had taken certain decision. According to the circular dated 26.5.2000, the State Government had decided as under:- ,sls izdj.k ftuesa lEcfU/kr uxj fodkl U;kl@LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk vokfIr dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gS rFkk ftlesa vokMZ ds vuqlkj eqvkotk jkf'k dk pSd LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk tkjh fd;k tkdj lEcfU/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 regularization of their land before the UIT, Ajmer. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, their applications were rejected. The UIT did not even communicate the petitioners individually about the rejection of their applications. When the petitioners came to know about dismissal of their applications, they served upon the UIT, Ajmer a notice of demand of justice dated 21.1.2010. Hence, these petitions before this Court. 6. The UIT did not even communicate the petitioners individually about the rejection of their applications. When the petitioners came to know about dismissal of their applications, they served upon the UIT, Ajmer a notice of demand of justice dated 21.1.2010. 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 26.5.2000 and 16.2.2002 certain concessions were made by the Government with regard to those cases which were subject matter of acquisition. Thus, under these circulars, the petitioners were, indeed, 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. Fourthly, the citizens do have a legitimate expectation 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 respondent No. 2 has not communicated the rejection of the applications to the petitioners. Sixthly, 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. Lastly, similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4273/2006 decided on 25.8.2009) and the cases of the petitioners are squarely covered by the said judgment. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Prush Nag, the learned counsel for the UIT, has contended that the UIT has regularized the land of only those landholders whose land did not fall within the land acquisition proceeding. Secondly, it did not regularize the land of those landholders whose land fall within the acquisition proceeding. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the bar. 9. Of course, under the Land Acquisition Act the State has the power of eminent domain to acquire the land for public purpose. Secondly, it did not regularize the land of those landholders whose land fall within the acquisition proceeding. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the bar. 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 26.5.2000, 16.2.2002, 16.10.2007 and lastly 2.11.2007. According to these circulars, even if the acquisition proceeding is complete even if the compen-sation 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 regularization 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 regularization under circular dated 26.5.2000. In order to take benefit of this circular, the petitioners had applied before the UIT. 10. 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. 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. 11. This Court has already decided the same issue in the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 25.8.2009. 12. Therefore, applying the same principle as applied in the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr. (supra), the petitioners are directed to file their individual representations before the UIT, Ajmer in support of their applications which were earlier filed before the UIT, Ajmer. The UIT, Ajmer 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, Ajmer 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 Ajmer is prohibited from 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. With these observations, these writ petitions are, hereby, allowed. No costs.