Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1623 (RAJ)

Sushma Arora v. National Highway Authority

2017-07-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. It is noticed that this writ petition has been presented on 19.12.2009 and the Office has pointed out as many as six defects. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2010 has granted two week's time to remove the defects but the same have not been removed up to 11.07.2017. On that date, one week's time has been granted to remove the defects then the same are removed and the matter is listed for admission today. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-14) passed by the respondent No. 2-Competent Officer (Competent Authority), National Highway (Additional Collector, Land Conversation), Chittorgarh and the judgment dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure-15) passed by the respondent No. 3-Arbitration Officer (District Collector), Chittorgarh. 3. The respondent No. 2-Competent Officer vide order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-14) has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of a land, which was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NHAI’) vide notification dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure-4). Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed an arbitration application before the respondent No. 3-Arbitration Officer, which has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure-15). 4. The claim of the petitioner, seeking compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the NHAI vide notification dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure-4), was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner was not an interested person as per Section 3-(G) (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 5. The case of the petitioner was to the effect that for Khasara Nos. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 211 and 212 situated at village Endla District Chittorgarh, the Mining Department, Government of Rajsthan executed a lease-deed in favour of the petitioner for 20 years on 06.03.1997 and since the above mentioned land was being acquired by the NHAI, the petitioner was entitled for compensation for said acquisition. 6. 6. The respondent No. 2-Competent Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner while observing that though, the land of the above mentioned Khasaras except Khasara No. 172 was leased by the Mining Department, State of Rajasthan in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of doing mining operations, but the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has ever taken possession of the said land from the original khatedars, whose names have been figured in the revenue records. The respondent No. 2-Competent Officer has also observed that the Khatedars of the land have already filed their claims and the said claims are pending. The respondent No. 2-Competent Officer in the impugned order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-14) has observed that the counsel appearing for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has not started mining activities on the land in question and the petitioner has not taken any steps to get the Kbhatedari of the Khatedars cancelled. The respondent No. 2-Competent Officer in the impugned order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-14) has observed that the counsel appearing for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has not started mining activities on the land in question and the petitioner has not taken any steps to get the Kbhatedari of the Khatedars cancelled. The relevant observations made by the respondent No. 2-Competent Officer in the impugned order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-14) are reproduced herein under:- ^^foi{kh;k }kjk Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 89 ds rgr~ [kuu yht dh Hkwfe dks vHkh rd vius dCts esa ugha fy;k gSA Hkwfe vHkh Hkh futh O;fDr;ksa dh [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ gSA ftudh [kkrsnkjh fof/kor~ /kkjk 89 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e ds rgr~ ftyk dysDVj ds ;gka vkosnu dj [kkrsnkjh lekIr ugha djok;h x;h gSA blds vykok foi{kh;k us vHkh rd [kuu iV~Vk dh ikyuk esa ekSds ij Hkh dksbZ [kuu xfrfof/k;ka vkjEHk ugha dh gSA tks rF; nkSjkus cgl odhy foi{kh;k us Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k gSA viuh [kkrsnkjh vFkok ekfydkuk gd dCtk Hkh orZeku esa foi{kh;k dk ugha gS] ;g rF; Hkh odhy foi{kh;k Lohdkj djrs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa os fdl izdkj eqvkotk ikus ds gdnkj gS] Li"V djus esa vleFkZ jgs gSaA tks [kku Dosjh vHkh vkjEHk gh ugha gS dksbZ e'khujh oxSjg Hkh Lkhfer ugha dh x;h gS Hkwfe dCts esa ugha yh x;h gS rks dksbZ e'khujh oxSjg LFkkfir dj [kuu xfrfof/k;ka vkjEHk djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA foi{kh;k dks [kuu iV~Vs dh Hkwfe dks /kkjk 89 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e 1956 ds rgr~ ftyk dysDVj ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr dj fu;ekuqlkj mldh eqvkotk jkf'k [kkrsnkjksa dks Hkqxrku djus ds i'pkr~ Hkwfe dk ljQSl jsaV tek djk dj fQj Hkwfe vius dCts esa ysuh gksxhA rc tkdj yht gksYMj dks mldh yht dh Hkwfe esa fdlh izdkj dh [kuu xfrfof/k;ksa ds vf/kdkj izkIr gksrs gSaA dsoy ek= jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r ekbfuax yht ls dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks tkrs gSaA foi{kh;k }kjk iz'uxr Hkwfe;ksa ds ekeysa esa vHkh rd mDrkuqlkj dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h gSA tgka rd jk"Vªh; jktekxZ vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 3&lh vkSj /kkjk 3&th esa of.kZr ijlu bUVjjsLVsM fgrc) O;fDr dk iz'u gS] blds fy, lacfU/kr fgrc) O;fDr;ksa dks ml Hkwfe ij viuk VkbZVy lkfcr djkuk vko';d gSA tc rd Hkwfe ij foi{kh;k dk dksbZ fof/kekU; VkbZVy lkfcr ugha gksrk] og fgrc) O;fDr dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gSA iz'uxr ekeysa esa ,slk dksbZ fof/kekU; VkbZVy foi{kh;k }kjk iz'uxr [kljk uacjku ds ckjs esa lkfcr ugha djk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh;k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd }kjk izLrqr dkuwuh m)j.k Hkh ;gka ykxw ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd iz'uxr Hkwfe u rks foi{kh;k dh [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ gS] u gh mlus yht gksYMj dh gSfl;r ls fof/kor ml ij dCtk izkIr fd;k gSA foi{kh;k ;g lkfcr djokus esa Hkh vlQy jgh gS fd og 1-19 djksM+ #i;s dk eqvkotk izkIr djus dh gdnkj fdl izdkj ls gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh;k }kjk izLrqr Dyse Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gS blfy, foi{kh;k dk Dyse vkosnu i= ,rn~ }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 7. The respondent No. 3-Arbitration Officer has rejected the arbitration application preferred on behalf of the petitioner and observed that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before the respondent No. 2-Competent Officer that she is person interested and, therefore, the respondent No. 2-Competent Officer has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner has not taken over the possession of the land leased out to her by the Mining Department, State of Rajasthan and not carried out any mining activities pursuant to the said lease-deed, as admitted by the counsel for the petitioner before the respondent No. 2-Competent Officer and when the names of the original Khatedars have not been deleted from the revenue records and they have also filed their claims in lieu of the acquisition of the land, the respondent No. 2-Competent Officer as well as the respondent No. 3-Arbitration Officer have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and judgment respectively. 9. Otherwise also the petitioner has not seriously pressed this writ petition from December 2009, hence, no case for interference is made out at this belated stage. 10. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is dismissed.