Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 400 (RAJ)

U. I. T. v. Durga Lal

2010-02-18

VINEET KOTHARI

body2010
Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—These appeals have been filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara against the order of the Reference Court of District Judge, Bhilwara passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which arose against the award of Land Acquisition Officer dated 18.3.2008. The list of 30 landholders in question, who are respondents in the present appeals, is placed on record by Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the UIT, Bhilwara. 2. The only question which arose for consideration by this Court in the batch of present appeals is whether the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara for whom the State Govt. acquired the land in question to widen the Sanganer, Kota road, should pay compensation to the land owners in the form of developed land to the extent of 15% of land acquired from such khatedars or 25% in terms of the notification No. i 6 ufo@3/2004 dated 27.10.2005 issued by the Urban Development Department of the Government of Rajasthan. 3. The Reference Court by the impugned order has directed giving of compensation in the form of 15% of the developed land to various land owners and in the list produced as aforesaid some of the land owners have been given land in the developed colony in UIT Scheme Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar' and some are intended to be given land in UIT Scheme `Tilak Nagar.' 4. Today, Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the UIT, Bhilwara in the presence of Secretary of UIT produced a detailed map of both the colonies and road in question for widening of which the land was acquired by the State Government for UIT Bhilwara and he submitted that the land owners whose land was acquired for widening the said road which is nearer to the UIT Scheme Tilak Nagar' can be given land in said `Tilak Nagar Scheme' whereas the land owners whose land fall nearer to UIT Scheme `Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar' can be given developed land in that scheme. He fairly submitted that since the State Government has directed by the aforesaid notification dated 27.10.2005 to give compensation in the form of 25% of developed laid, the UIT, Bhilwara is bound to give compensation in the form of developed land to the extent of 25% of land acquired from the land owners in terms of the said Notification dt. 27.10.2005 which even now holds the field. 27.10.2005 which even now holds the field. He however, submits that there is no justification for giving the developed land to the extent of 25% of the land owners whose land fall near Tilak Nagar Scheme in the developed land of Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the Reference Court to that extent deserves to be modified. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari learned counsel appearing for the respondents, land owners/khatadars urged that Tilak Nagar Scheme is not developed by the UIT so far and the developed land is available in the Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar whereas such developed land can be given to the present respondents land owners also. In the alternative, he submitted that UIT Bhilwara should be directed to develop the Tilak Scheme also sufficiently where the 25% of the developed land is intended to be given by UIT, Bhilwara to the respondents, land owners in terms of the Government notification dated 27.10.2005 as aforesaid proposed by learned counsel for the appellant, UIT, Bhilwara. 6. The details of reference case number in the list of all the 30 cases before this Court and the map produced by the learned counsel for the UIT, Bhilwara are taken on record in the case of Civil Misc. appeal No. 1603/2009- UIT Bhilwara vs. Durga Lal the lead case. 7. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari is, however, not in position to dispute that the land of land owners whose land in the said map produced by the UIT Bhilwara was nearer to the Tilak Nagar Scheme in comparison to the Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar could be given such developed 25% land in Tilak Nagar Scheme. 8. I have heard learned counsels at some length and perused the record of the case. The said notification dated 27.10.2005 as referred to above which has been placed on record is reproduced here for ready reference. 8. I have heard learned counsels at some length and perused the record of the case. The said notification dated 27.10.2005 as referred to above which has been placed on record is reproduced here for ready reference. ^^jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl foHkkx Øekad i- 6 ¼26½ ufo@3@3004 t;iqj fnukad 27-10-2005 ifji= t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k@jktLFkku vkoklu e.My@uxj fodkl U;kl@LFkkuh; fudk;ksa dh ;kstukvksa ds fy;s vkilh le>kSrs ls Hkwfe izkIr djus gsrq Hkwfe vokfIr ds izdj.kksa esa izfØ;k dks ljy djus rFkk vokl dh tkus okyh Hkwfe ij ;kstuk dk le; ij fØ;kUo;u gks lds] bl n`f"V ls Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkj }kjk Hkwfe ds fu%'kqYd lefiZr djus ij eqvkots ds :i esa 15 izfr'kr fodflr vkoklh; Hkwfe fn;s tkus ds izko/kku fd;s x;sA orZeku esa Hkwfe dh dherksa esa gqbZ vR;f/kd o`f) ds dkj.k vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys 15 izfr'kr fodflr Hkwfe i;kZIr eqvkotk ughaa ekurs gq, fdlkuksa }kjk blesa o`f) fd;s tkus dh fujUrj ekax dh tk jgh gSA bl lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk fopkj fd;k tkdj vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys eqvkots ds :i esa vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA vr% iwoZZZ esa tkjh leLr ifji=ksa@vkns'kksa dks vf/kØfer djrs gq, fuEu fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa& 1- Hkwfe vokfIr ds izdj.kksa esa [kkrsnkj }kjk fu%'kqYd Hkwfe lefiZr djus ij vokl'kqnk Hkwfe ds cnys vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe dsoy mlh [kkrsnkj dks vkoafVr dh tk ldsxh] ftldh Hkwfe vokIr dh xbZ gSA [kkrsnkj }kjk crk;s x;s vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke ls Hkwfe dk vkoaVu ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA 2- vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe ds cnys fodflr Hkwfe [kkrsnkj dh vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe esa ls ;k ml ;kstuk esa ftlds fy;s Hkwfe vokIr dh tkuh gS esa gh vkoaVu fd;k tk ldsxkA ;fn Hkwfe dk vkoaVu mlh Hkwfe ;kstuk esa lEHko ugha gks rks vokIr 'kqnk Hkwfe dk udn eqvkotk ns; gksxkA 3- ;fn vokIr'kqnk Hkwfe ds cnys vkoklh; Hkwfe dk vkoaVu mlh LFkku ij fd;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ dks fufeZr Hkou dk vyx ls eqvkotk ns; ugha gksxkA mlh ;kstuk esa fdlh vU; LFkku ij vkoklh; Hkwfe vkoafVr fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fufeZr Hkouksa dk vyx ls eqvkotk ns; gksxkA dqvk] o`{k bR;kfn dk eqvkotk ns; ugha gksxkA 4- ;g izko/kku Hkfo"; esa Hkwfe vokfIr ds izdj.k esa ykxw gksaxsA ftu izdj.kksa esa Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk vokMZ ?kksf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku@U;k;ky; esa tek djok;k tk pqdk gS vFkok 15 izfr'kr fodflr Hkwfe vkoafVr fd;s tkus dk izko/kku vokMZ esa fd;k tk pqdk gSaA ,sls izdj.kksa esa ;s izko/kku ykxw ugha gksaxsA 5- Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1884 ¼1884 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la[;k 1½ dh /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds i'pkr~ rFkk /kkjk 5 dh vf/klwpuk ds uksfVl tkjh djus ls iwoZ ftl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr Hkwfe vokIr dh tkrh gSA mldk ekufp= lEcfU/kr laLFkk }kjk jkT; ljdkj ,oa Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk [kkrsnkjksa dks lwfpr fd;k tk;sxk fd og udn eqvkots ds LFkku ij fodflr Hkwfe izkIr dj ldrs gSA bl laca/k esa [kkrsnkj@Hkw-Lokeh }kjk viuk fodYi izLrqr djuk gksxkA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk ekufp= [kkrsnkj@Hkw-Lokeh dks voyksdu djk;k tk;sxkA ftlls muds }kjk viuk fodYi nsus esa dfBukbZ u gksA 6- Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk eqvkots dh jkf'k ;k vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe esa ls ,d dh gh vfHk'ka"kk dj ldsxkA vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys fodflr Hkwfe fn;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa lEcaf/kr laLFkk@LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk de ls de fuEu pkj vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vkoaVu lfefr xfBr dh tk;sxhA ¼i½ lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k@U;kl@LFkkuh; fudk; dk v/;{kA ¼ii½ lacaf/kr izkf/kdkjh@U;kl@LFkkuh; fudk; dk lfpoA ¼iii½ lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k@U;kl@LFkkuh; fudk; dk foRrh; ,oa ys[kk 'kk[kk dk izeq[kA ¼iv½ uxj fu;kstu foHkkx dk izfrfuf/kA 7- mDr lfefr vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe ds ewY; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe vkoaVu dh vuq'kalk dj ldsxhA vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk ewY; mDrkuqlkj vkoaVu fd;s tkus okyh fodflr Hkwfe ds cktkj ewY; ls vf/kd gksus dh fLFkfr esa fodflr Hkwfe de dh tk ldsxhA mDr vuq'ka"kk ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius vokMZ esa izko/kku fd;k tk;sxkA vokMZ vuqeksnu gksus ij lacaf/kr laLFkk@LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk lacaf/kr laLFkk dh lfefr dh vfHk'ka"kk ds Øe esa izLrko rS;kj dj fodflr Hkwfe vkoaVu djus gsrq izdj.k Lohd`fr gsrq jkT; ljdkj dks fHktok;k tk;sxkA 8- vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys [kkrsnkj@Hkw-Lokeh dks vkoafVr fodflr vkoklh; Hkwfe dk vkoaVu ds i'pkr~ izpfyr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr vkoaVh okf.kfT;d ;k vU; iz;kstukFkZ Hkw-mi;ksx ifjorZu djk ldsxkA ,l-Mh- ¼MkW- yfyr ds- iaokj½ izeq[k 'kklu lfpo 27-10-05 izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gS& 1- izeq[k lfpo] ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn;k] jktLFkkuA 2- fof'k"V lgk;d] ekuuh; jkT; ea=h uxjh; fodkl foHkkxA 3- futh lfpo] eq[; lfpo] jktLFkku ljdkjA 4- futh lfpo] izeq[k 'kklu lfpo] uxjh; fodkl foHkkxA 5- futh lfpo] 'kklu lfpo] Lok;Rr 'kklu foHkkxA 6- vk;qDr] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqjA 7- vk;qDr jktLFkku vkoklu e.My] t;iqjA 8- leLr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] jktLFkkuA 9- leLr ftyk dysDVj] jktLFkkuA 10- funs'kd] LFkkuh; fudk; foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqjA 11- lfpo] uxj fodkl U;kl] leLrA 12- jf{kr i=koyhA ,l-Mh- 27-10-05 'kklu mi lfpo** 9. According to the said circular issued by the State Government, it is clear that the earlier decision of the State Government to give 15% developed land to the land owners whose land is acquired for public purpose stood revised and superseded by the said notification dated 27.10.2005 in which a clear decision was taken by the State Government to give compensation in the form of 25% of the developed land (20% residential and 5% commercial). The said notification dated 27.10.2005 still holds the field and there is no dispute from either side on this point that this Notification would cover the present cases also. Neither of the parties are in a position to dispute as to why the UIT Bhilwara should not also pay similarly the same compensation in the from of 25% of the developed land to the land owners. Thus, the only question which remains to be considered by this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the developed land to the land owners before this Court who are the respondents should be given in any one particular colony by the UIT or the land which is nearer to the land acquired from them by the State Government. In this regard, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, UIT Bhilwara, that the land owners/respondents whose land is near to Tilak Nagar Scheme would be given 25% of the developed land in Tilak Nagar and the land owners/respondents whose land was nearer to the Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar will be given developed land in that scheme seems to be reasonable, plausible and acceptable to this Court. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents land owners whose land though may be situated nearer to Tilak Nagar Scheme should also be given developed land in Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar is not tenable. The land owners whose land is acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot claim as a matter of right the developed land in any particular colony or area or scheme developed by the Urban Improvement Trust. On the other hand, giving of the developed land nearer to the land which they lost in such acquisition appears to be more reasonable. The submissions that the Tilak Nagar Scheme is not fully developed as of now is a question of fact. On the other hand, giving of the developed land nearer to the land which they lost in such acquisition appears to be more reasonable. The submissions that the Tilak Nagar Scheme is not fully developed as of now is a question of fact. However, that can be taken care of by directing the UIT, Bhilwara to develop that scheme of Tilak Nagar also equally and expeditiously so that the real benefit of developed land being given in compensation for the land acquired from the land owners is achieved by the respondents land owners. 11. Accordingly these appeals are disposed of by modifying the impugned reference order dated 7.11.2009 (in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1603/2009) and other similar reference orders passed by the Reference Court of learned District Judge, Bhilwara on different dates in the batch of 30 appeals by directing the appellant UIT Bhilwara to immediately pay the compensation to the respondents, land owners in the form of 25% of developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in the developed scheme of UIT Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar to the land owners whose acquired land fell nearer to that colony and in Tilak Nagar Scheme to those land owners whose land fell nearer to that Tilak Nagar Scheme. Such allotment of developed and should be made if not already made within two months from today and possession should be handed over to the respondents with proper lease deeds. The land owners/respondents who are allotted such developed land in Tilak Nagar Scheme, which Scheme which is stated to be not fully developed as of now which fact is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant UIT, Bhilwara, the UIT, Bhilwara is directed to undertake the necessary development works immediately and necessary development should be completed within a period of 2 years from today.