Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1527 (RAJ)

Himadri Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2018-07-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant bunch of writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and is thus being decided together by this single Judgment. 2. The petitioners herein are all land holders having Khatedari lands in the rural areas of village Nimbli Brahmanan and Rohat, District Pali. Parts of lands owned by petitioners were sought by the respondent RIICO for developing a new industrial area, who approached the land acquisition officer for acquisition of total 218.16 hectares of land from these two villages in the year 2010. The land acquisition proceedings came to be finalised after the year 2014 and thus, the compensation payable to the land holders has been assessed as per the criterion mentioned in The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') and the final awards have been passed in lieu of such acquisition. However, the petitioners feel dissatisfied with the application of multiplier while assessing the market value of their lands in terms of the notification dated 16.10.2014 issued by the State Government. Thus, they have approached this Court through these writ petitions for assailing the action of the respondents who have, as per the petitioners, wrongly applied the multiplier of 1.25 instead of 1.75 while evaluating the market value of their acquired lands. The relevant notification dated 16.10.2014 on which, the petitioners rely upon has been placed on record as Annexure-3 with the writ petitions and the language thereof is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: xxx xxx 3. Shri Pradeep Swami, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently urged that the lands acquired are located entirely in the district Pali. The Land Acquisition Officer is none other than the SDO, Rohat, District Pali. The lands of the petitioners are located at a distance of more than 30 Kms. from the urban area of Pali and as such, while assessing the market value thereof, the multiple factor to be applied in terms of the notification dated 16.10.2014 should appropriately be 1.75 instead of 1.25 as applied by the respondents. As per Shri Swami the entire concept of the Act of 2013 and the Schedule appended thereto refers to the district wise acquisition. As per Shri Swami the entire concept of the Act of 2013 and the Schedule appended thereto refers to the district wise acquisition. He thus contended that while assessing the market value and compensation in lieu of the land under acquisition, all applicable factors would have to be assessed as per the yardsticks of the district concerned. As per Shri Swami, the respondents are not justified in applying the multiple of 1.25 in reference to the proximity of the lands in question with the Jodhpur Development Authority and rather as per him, since the lands are at a distance greater than 30 Kms. from Pali urban area, the appropriate multiple factor to be applied should be 1.75 for calculating such compensation. Shri Swami further referred to the notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by the Central Government whereby, the multiplier to be applied while assessing the market value of the rural land has been fixed invariably at 2.00. He thus contends that the action of the respondents in fixing and applying a lower multiplier is per se arbitrary and illegal. He thus implored the Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and while accepting the writ petitions, direct the respondents to reassess the compensation payable to the petitioners against the lands acquired by applying the multiplier 1.75 and to direct appropriate enhancement thereof with interest on account of delayed payment. 4. Per contra, Shri Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel representing the RIICO and Shri N.S. Rajpurohit learned AGC representing the Land Acquisition Officer vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. Shri Purohit submitted that language of the notification dated 16.10.2014 is absolutely unambiguous inasmuch as, it has been clearly stipulated therein that in cases of lands falling in rural areas, the multiplier would have to be applied in reference to distance from "the nearest urban area". If the land to be acquired falls within the radial distance of 0 Kms. to 15 Kms., multiplier of 1.25; within distance of 15 Kms. to 30 Kms., multiplier of 1.50 and distance of 30 Kms. and above, multiplier of 1.75 is applicable. He submits that had the intention of the legislature been to govern the multiplier with reference to distance from the District Headquarter concerned, such language would have been specifically used in the notification itself. to 30 Kms., multiplier of 1.50 and distance of 30 Kms. and above, multiplier of 1.75 is applicable. He submits that had the intention of the legislature been to govern the multiplier with reference to distance from the District Headquarter concerned, such language would have been specifically used in the notification itself. It was further contended by the counsel representing the respondents that in case, the petitioners feel be aggrieved with the terms and conditions of the notification then, they could have challenged the validity thereof but having failed to do so, they are bound by the terms and conditions of the notification and are precluded from questioning the decision of the respondents in assessing the market value of their lands by applying the multiplier 1.25 with reference to the distance from the nearest urban area i.e. Jodhpur. As per Shri Purohit, as the lands of the petitioners are closer in proximity to the urban area of Jodhpur Development Authority, the DLC rates thereof are definitely higher as compared to the other rural lands in Pali District. He thus urges that the petitioners cannot claim dual advantage of higher DLC rate as well as higher multiplier when market value of the lands is being assessed as per the Act of 2013. To the submission regarding notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by the Central Government fixing the multiplier at 2.00, Shri Purohit submits that it is the discretion of the appropriate Government to fix the suitable multiplier as per the available resources and other relevant criterion and that no parity can be claimed with the multiplier fixed by the Central Government which has more resources available at its disposal as compared to the State Governments and hence, is at liberty to be more benevolent. He reiterated the contention that in case, the petitioners were aggrieved with the State Government's notification on the ground that it runs contrary to the Central Government's notification then, they could have challenged the same as per law. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the writ petitions as being devoid of merit. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The basic bone of contention between the parties to the litigation is regarding interpretation of the notification dated 16.10.2014 which has been reproduced herein above. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The basic bone of contention between the parties to the litigation is regarding interpretation of the notification dated 16.10.2014 which has been reproduced herein above. The notification was issued for applying graded multiple factor on the market value of the lands to be acquired. Upon a plain and simple reading of the notification, it is apparent that the State Government took a conscious decision that multiplier applicable would have to be assessed in reference to the distance of the land under acquisition from "the nearest urban area". Had it been the intention of the rule making authority even for a moment to apply the multiplier in reference to the distance from the headquarter of the district concerned, such connotation would have been mentioned in the notification itself. The explanation below the notification makes the issue crystal clear while providing that for the three cities having Development Authorities i.e. Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, the urban limits shall be considered to be the entire area where the jurisdiction of the development authority extends whereas for the others, it shall be construed to be the local limit of the Municipality concerned. Manifestly, there is logic and rational behind the purport of this notification. It is expected that with inclusion of the rural areas within the territorial limits of the development authority (which extend to well beyond the municipal limits of the city), urban development would reach such areas more rapidly as compared to the rural areas adjoining the smaller Municipal towns. Simultaneously, the adjoining areas even if in another district would be directly benefitted by such development. It has been clearly provided in the notification dated 16.10.2014 that the multiplier shall be graded from 1.25 to 1.75 according to the distance of the land from the "nearest urban area". Admittedly, as per the geographical domains, the lands of Rohat and Nimbli Brahmanan (though falling in the Pali District), are closure in proximity to the limits of Jodhpur Development Authority (the nearest urban area) and thus, expectedly, DLC rates of these areas would be higher as compared to other rural areas in the Pali District. Admittedly, as per the geographical domains, the lands of Rohat and Nimbli Brahmanan (though falling in the Pali District), are closure in proximity to the limits of Jodhpur Development Authority (the nearest urban area) and thus, expectedly, DLC rates of these areas would be higher as compared to other rural areas in the Pali District. As such and in view of the unambiguous language of the notification (Annexure-3) dated 16.10.2014 governing the multiple factor to be applied for evaluating market value of the lands (which in the cases of the petitioners lands could be the JDA), this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents were perfectly justified in applying the multiplier 1.25 market value of the lands for determining the compensation payable to the petitioners pursuant to acquisition of their lands in the two revenue villages mentioned above. 7. Finding no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned action, I am not inclined to exercise this Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to interfere therein. 8. Hence, these writ petitions as well as stay applications are dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. 9. A copy of this order be placed in each file.