Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1161 (RAJ)

Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-03

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - In the proceedings taken up before the Coordinate Bench, the High Court has in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 10130/2014, the Court has passed following order: "The reply to the writ petition has been filed today and is taken on record. With consent of the parties, writ petition has been heard finally. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the resolution dated 17th June, 2014, taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board. It is a case where a land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894"). An award was passed where compensation was ordered to be given to one party, as alleged by learned counsel for petitioner. A revenue suit for partition of the land was thus preferred by the petitioner to get compensation of 1/9 share in the land, so acquired. The Rajasthan Housing Board was made party to it but suit qua them was dismissed as issue of apportionment of compensation cannot be determined in the suit for partition. The petitioner then invoked provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1894 and maintained a reference. The issue of apportionment of land to the extent of claim of the petitioner would be determined therein. The petitioners even preferred a writ petition earlier and has been decided by this court on 15th April, 2014 with certain directions. After the judgment aforesaid, the respondents proceeded in the matter with intention to allot plot of land to other shareholders of the land. The process was taken up at the instance of Secretary of Legislative Assembly having no competence for it. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that when reference is pending to claim 1/9 share in the land and the compensation would not be paid in cash but with allotment of land, the official respondents should not have proceeded with the matter. If at all land is to be allotted, it should be after keeping 1/9 share for the petitioners, pending reference. It is further stated that reference is pending for last many years thus while protecting rights of the petitioners to the extent of share claimed by them, a direction may be given to the court concerned to decide the reference at the earliest. Learned counsel for respondents have contested the writ petition. It is further stated that reference is pending for last many years thus while protecting rights of the petitioners to the extent of share claimed by them, a direction may be given to the court concerned to decide the reference at the earliest. Learned counsel for respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that Housing Board is not allotting the land ignoring the claim made by the petitioners. They have taken a decision to allot two pattas separately, out of which, one would be for 8/9 share and other for 1/9 share. The allotment of land for 1/9 share would not be made till disposal of the reference, rather, it would be kept pending. In view of above, challenge to the proceedings is not sustainable and in any case, with the clarity aforesaid, writ petition may be disposed of. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that after the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, an award was passed. The dispute was raised by the petitioners about their share, said to have been ignored by the Land Acquisition Officer. A suit for partition was preferred followed by reference under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. The reference is sought for apportionment of compensation. The petitioners' claim is for 1/9 share in the land acquired by the respondents. In view of above, I find justification in the suggestion given by the counsel appearing for Rajasthan Housing Board inasmuch as they can issue patta for 8/9 share of the land acquired leaving patta of 1/9 share of the land. The patta for 1/9 share may be issued subject to outcome of the reference preferred by the petitioner. By the aforesaid, rights of the petitioners would be protected till disposal of the reference and at the same time, compensation would be awarded to the extent, no dispute exists. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board not to issue patta for 1/9 share of the land acquired while issuing patta for 8/9 share. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board not to issue patta for 1/9 share of the land acquired while issuing patta for 8/9 share. A further direction is given to the court concerned to expedite hearing and decide the reference, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order so that claim of the petitioners and others can be crystalised followed by allotment of land for remaining 1/9 share immediately on disposal of the reference. The revenue court is also directed to decide the pending suit for partition expeditiously and if possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 2. Thereafter, the OSD of Urdan Development & Housing Department held the reference to be not maintainable vide its order dated 21.4.2017. 3. The contempt proceedings were undertaken by the writ petitioner therein and on 6.3.2018 the contempt petition was disposed of as a statement was recorded of the Officer that the order dated 21.4.2017 shall be withdrawn shall be within seven days. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not a party in the earlier proceedings and as the order dated 21.4.2017 has been passed by OSD whereby he refused to answer the reference, the petitioner had no other grievance left; However, when the order dated 21.4.2017 has been withdrawn, the petitioner has filed present petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel, this court finds that the petitioner in the present writ petition has raised a submission that there was no reference made with regard to acquisition proceedings and the petitioner is not bound by the order passed by this Court as he was not a party to the proceedings and he submits that separate adjudication can be made in the present writ petition. 6. This Court finds that the adjudication was made by this Court by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 10130/2014 decided on 12.1.2017. Neither any review petition nor any appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the said order and it has attained finality. The OSD order dated 21.4.2017 which was passed in contravention of observation of this Court has been withdrawn during the contempt proceedings and the court closed the contempt proceedings thereto. 7. Neither any review petition nor any appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the said order and it has attained finality. The OSD order dated 21.4.2017 which was passed in contravention of observation of this Court has been withdrawn during the contempt proceedings and the court closed the contempt proceedings thereto. 7. In the circumstances, to again re-examine the matter in parallel proceedings being undertaken by petitioner is not warranted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.