Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1716 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ASHOK KUMAR

2018-08-14

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. On 05.07.2012 a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of a large parcel of lands. 3. A bunch of writ petitions, lead matter being S.B.C.W.P. No.14351/2012; Smt. Rajbala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. were filed challenging the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pleading therein as to why subject lands were not suitable to be acquired and principal argument being constructions being made over the lands. 4. Rather than relegating the writ-petitioners to the remedy of challenging a declaration if at all issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 concerning the objections filed and enquiry held as contemplated by Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notices were issued in the writ petitions. 5. During the pendency of the writ petitions declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 10.07.2013. 6. Concededly in the declaration not all lands covered by the Notification under Section 4 of the Act were included. Heavily built upon land was excluded. Vacant land or where only boundary walls were constructed was proposed to be acquired as per the declaration under Section 6. 7. Unfortunately for the State its Counsel made a statement in the said writ petitions before the learned Single Judge on 27.8.2013 that the Government had decided to drop the acquisition proceedings at the stage of Section 6 declaration. 8. Based on the statements the writ petitions were disposed of as infructuous but binding the State to the statement made by the Counsel. 9. Acquisition proceedings continued resulting in an award being published on 06.07.2018. 10. But before that, when the Government came to know that the writ petitions filed were disposed of on 27.08.2013, the applications were filed to recall the concession/statement made by the Government Counsel and decision prayed to be made on merits. The said applications were directed to be treated by the learned Single Judge as applications seeking review. The applications are still pending. 11. In the meanwhile 61 writ petitions came to be filed challenging the award dated 06.07.2018. The same have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22.12.2016. 12. The said applications were directed to be treated by the learned Single Judge as applications seeking review. The applications are still pending. 11. In the meanwhile 61 writ petitions came to be filed challenging the award dated 06.07.2018. The same have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22.12.2016. 12. Noting the statement made by the Counsel for the State resulting in the order dated 22.08.2013 being passed in the earlier writ petitions the learned Single Judge has allowed only such writ petitions where the writ-petitioners had earlier filed the writ petitions and to said extent the award has been quashed qua said writ-petitioners. However, this is with the caveat. The caveat is that if the order dated 27.08.2013 is recalled said writpetitioners would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 13. Now, a wrong statement made by the Counsel can never bind the parties. As noted hereinabove declaration under Section 6 had been issued on 10.07.2013 excluding the built upon land which was earlier proposed to be acquired when the Notification under Section 4 was issued. Counsel for the State Government, under a wrong impression, made a statement on 27.8.2013 that at the stage of Section 6 acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 were dropped. 14. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have either awaited the decision in the applications filed by the State to recall the order dated 27.08.2013 or to have noted aforesaid facts and then pass an effective order and not a contingent order. The only effective order had to be to allow the writ-petitioners to challenge the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by filing fresh petition. 15. Under the circumstances, noting the peculiar facts hereinabove we dispose of the appeals setting aside the impugned order insofar it has granted relief to the writ-petitioners who had filed the earlier writ petitions lead by the writ petition filed by Rajbala. In respect of the award in question we permit the writ-petitioners to file fresh writ petitions challenging the award as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. In respect of the award in question we permit the writ-petitioners to file fresh writ petitions challenging the award as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. We also declare that the Government would not be bound by the omnibus statement made by their Counsel resulting in the order dated 27.08.2013 being passed and would direct the learned Single Judge who is seized of the applications, now treated as review applications concerning the order dated 27.08.2013, to pass consequential orders in light of our present order: being the declaration that the Government would not be bound by the wrong concession made by the Counsel. 16. As a matter of fact and law said writ petitions were premature and in any case have now become infructuous.