Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 493 (RAJ)

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-17

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6470/2006 declining to grant an appropriate writ, order or direction for restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the land involved, the appellants-writ petitioners are in appeal. 2. We have heard Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-writ-petitioners. 3. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue formal notice. 4. In short, the pleaded version of the appellants-writ petitioners is that they are in possession of the land measuring 78 bighas covered by khasras no.30 and 31 situated in village Neherda, Gram Panchayat Dholiya having purchased the same from Gangadan S/o Kalyan Dan and others by a registered deed of sale dated 27.4.1976. According to them, their names have been recorded as khatedars of the land, which they had been utilising for the purpose of cultivation. They have averred that on 11.10.2006 in a meeting convened by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pali, they alongwith other khatedars of the area were intimated that the land amongst others of khasras no.30 and 31 had been acquired for Bandi Nehra Irrigation Project Tehsil Rohat District Pali. Though the appellants-writ-petitioners having come to know of this, enquired about the rate of compensation to be awarded and also sought for the details of the process of acquisition, the concerned authorities did not disclose any to them. Contending that there was no acquisition proceedings contemplated in law and claiming that their land had remained in their possession, they sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking the aforementioned relief. 5. The State-respondents in their reply asserted that the land of the appellants-writ petitioners alongwith others had been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Amended 1984) (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act") and that amongst others, notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been published, as required. According to them, on 6.5.2002, the award was passed for Rs. 8913719/- and it included a sum of Rs. 4,34,208/- for the land of the appellants-writ-petitioners. They stated as well that the appellants-writ-petitioners were duly informed about the amount of compensation for their land and that the same was in deposit with the concerned authority. They were also requested to collect the amount of compensation. 8913719/- and it included a sum of Rs. 4,34,208/- for the land of the appellants-writ-petitioners. They stated as well that the appellants-writ-petitioners were duly informed about the amount of compensation for their land and that the same was in deposit with the concerned authority. They were also requested to collect the amount of compensation. Alongwith the reply, the respondents also filed the copies of the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act alongwith the general abstract from the relevant records declaring the amount of compensation awarded in connection with the Project. The letters requesting the appellants writ- petitioners to collect the amount quantified for them were also appended to the reply. 6. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, dismissed the writ petition after recording inter-alia the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants-writ-petitioners that the land had already been been acquired. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that if the appellants-writ-petitioners had any pending claim for compensation, they would be at liberty to peruse the same before the appropriate forum. 7. In course of the appeal, an additional affidavit has been filed by the appellants-writ-petitioners bringing on records documents to indicate that their land is still in their possession. 8. Mr.Sharma has argued that as the possession of the land of the appellants-writ-petitioners has not yet been taken over by the respondents, the acquisition proceeding claimed to have been undertaken is non est in law and thus, interference with the order impugned is warranted in the interest of justice. To support this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana and ors., AIR 2013 SC 856 : 2012 (3) DNJ (SC) 676 . 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are left unpersuaded by the plea taken. Having regard to the averments made in the reply of the State-respondents alongwith the documents appended thereto, we are not inclined to accept the appellants' plea that no acquisition proceeding under the Act had been undertaken including their land. Having regard to the averments made in the reply of the State-respondents alongwith the documents appended thereto, we are not inclined to accept the appellants' plea that no acquisition proceeding under the Act had been undertaken including their land. To reiterate, the documents annexed to the reply of the State-respondents do reveal that an amount of compensation as referred to in the State-reply had been quantified for the acquisition of the land of the appellants-writ-petitioners and was in deposit in the office of the jurisdictional Tehsildar and that they had been time and again informed about the same to collect the amount. Though the additional affidavit filed by the appellants-writ-petitioners is to highlight that they are still in possession of their land, the averments made in the reply of the State-respondents qua the acquisition of the same under the Act and quantification of the amount of compensation have not been denied. 10. In this view of the matter, the plea of the appellants-writ petitioners that their land had not been acquired under the Act and that compensation therefor has not been quantified and offered to them does not commend for acceptance. The rejection of their challenge to the acquisition proceeding qua their land as recorded by the learned Single Judge thus does not call for any interference. We are also inclined to hold on the basis of the materials available on record that the land had been acquired for a public purpose within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, it would be open to the State-respondents to take necessary follow up steps in this regard. Needless to say, the appellants-writ5 petitioners are also left at liberty to pursue their claim for compensation, if so advised. 11. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Patasi Devi (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the contextual facts therein, their Lordships had returned a finding that there was no public purpose for acquiring the land involved and that exercise had been undertaken to handover the land to a private colonizer. In the result, the appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******