Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2217 (RAJ)

Ramdeo Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-11-26

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dt. 23.08.2007 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. The petitioner-appellant in the writ petition had prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation to him at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard for his land in question acquired by the respondent no. 2 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner- appellant had title and possession over the land bearing khasra no. 497/2 situated at village Jhunjhunu. Out of the said land, the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, wanted to acquire a piece of land for construction of a road, initially 40 feet in width, by allowing appropriate compensation to the petitioner-appellant. Later on, the width of the road was expanded to 60 feet and due to this expansion of the road, some 'pucca' houses and some valuable fruit trees were being acquired by the Municipal Board for which the petitioner-appellant claimed additional compensation. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, vide letter no. 116 dt. 03.12.1996 informed the petitioner-appellant for acquisition of 3506.66 square yard of land from his land bearing Khasra No. 497/2 to provide a link road from Basant Vihar colony to Pandit Deen Dayal Nagar, which colony was developed by the Municipal Board as a residential colony and offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. The petitioner-appellant, in reply to the letter dt. 03.12.1996, gave his consent for acquisition of land on payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. The land of the petitioner-appellant was adjoining the Basant Vihar Scheme, which was a residential colony and the cost of the land at the place as mentioned in his reply thereto dt. 11.12.1996, was Rs. 500/- per square yard. The rate of compensation for acquisition of the land in question agreed to in between the parties was Rs. 180/- per square yard, which was assessed by the Deputy Registrar (Registration), Jhunjhunu and intimated to the respondent no. 2 vide letter dt. 18.11.1996. The said rate was also agreed in the meeting of the City Monitoring Committee held on 12.12.1996 for the land in question of the petitioner-appellant. 180/- per square yard, which was assessed by the Deputy Registrar (Registration), Jhunjhunu and intimated to the respondent no. 2 vide letter dt. 18.11.1996. The said rate was also agreed in the meeting of the City Monitoring Committee held on 12.12.1996 for the land in question of the petitioner-appellant. The land has been acquired by the respondents and a 'pucca' road has also been constructed connecting Basant Vihar scheme to Pandit Deen Dayal Nagar, but the respondents have sanctioned the compensation of only Rs. 92,000/- and sent him Cheque No. 352243 dt. 02.06.1997 along-with a letter dt. 16.06.1997, which amount was not at the agreed rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. He should therefore be paid the additional compensation. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge taking note of the decision of the City Monitoring Committee, which considered the proposal of the petitioner-appellant in its meeting held on 12.12.1996 under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Jhunjhunu and decided that the compensation to the time of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha be awarded in favour of the petitioner-appellant as the existing rate of agricultural land in nearby area is Rs. 50,000/- per bigha but after including the penal interest of three years, the rate was enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. For the total land of 1 bigha and 3 biswa, the Cheque of Rs. 92,000/- was sent to the petitioner-appellant. 3. Mr. Prateek Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant, has argued that the land of the petitioner-appellant was not lawfully acquired by the respondents. The Municipal Board sent a letter dt. 03.12.1996 to the petitioner-appellant requesting to give his consent for providing the land measuring 3506.66 square yard from Khasra no. 497/2 of the village Jhunjhunu. In the said letter, the respondents simply asked the petitioner-appellant to give his consent for acquisition of the land in his ownership and possession, and the compensation price was calculated at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. The petitioner- appellant in reply to the aforesaid letter gave his consent to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard but also demanded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for demolition of his rooms and boundary wall. 180/- per square yard. The petitioner- appellant in reply to the aforesaid letter gave his consent to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard but also demanded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for demolition of his rooms and boundary wall. Subsequently, the respondents decided to enhance the width of the road from 40' to 60' and that is why the petitioner-appellant submitted the application to the Administrator, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, stating that he gave his consent for acquisition of his land for construction of only 40' wide road and now the Municipal Board was constructing 60' wide road, which would necessitate for demolition of his three more rooms and therefore he should be awarded further additional compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the City Monitoring Committee has illegally decided to pay to the petitioner-appellant the compensation at the rate applicable to the agricultural land, whereas the report, which the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, requisitioned from the Sub Registrar, Jhunjhunu, (Annexure-3) dt. 18.11.1996, clearly stated that the sale-deed of the residential plots out of the same agricultural land of khasra no. 497/2 was registered at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. He, however, also additionally stated that the rate of the agricultural land in between the crossing of Mandawa Road Housing Board and Churu-Bisau Byepass was Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. He also stated that the rate of the agricultural land away from the road and the locality is Rs. 52,000/- per bigha and the rate of the agricultural land at the distance of two kilometer from the road is Rs. 42,000/- per bigha. He also stated that the DLC rate of the land is not as per khasra-wise but area-wise. The learned counsel argued that when it was proved before the City Monitoring Committee that the land in question was located in the residential area and one residential plot was sold vide sale-deed at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard, the City Monitoring Committee could not have unilaterally decided to pay to the petitioner-appellant the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha and that too, ignoring the offer given by the Municipal Board to pay to the petitioner-appellant the compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. 4. The learned counsel submitted that even the learned Single Judge dt. 80,000/- per bigha and that too, ignoring the offer given by the Municipal Board to pay to the petitioner-appellant the compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. 4. The learned counsel submitted that even the learned Single Judge dt. 22.05.2007 during the pendency of the writ petition required the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner- appellant in terms of the Circulars dt. 13.12.2001 and 27.03.2005 issued by the Government in its UDH Department whereby the Government proposed to provide 15% to 20% developed land in lieu of the acquired land. The learned Single Judge also required the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner-appellant in this behalf. The petitioner-appellant was therefore required to make a suitable application. However, subsequently, the Committee headed by fee Chairman of the Municipal Board in its meeting held on 12.07.2007 rejected the application of the petitioner-appellant on the premise that earlier the City Monitoring Committee, in its meeting held on 12.12.1996, had already decided to acquire the land at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha and that has attained finality and in lieu thereof the payment of compensation has also been made. 5. The learned counsel argued that the land was acquired for construction of road to connect two residential colonies, therefore, the land, although might have been recorded in the revenue record as the agricultural land, it was falling in the residential area within the urbanization limit of the municipality, which is why the Municipal Board has constructed the road. There was, therefore, no justification for the respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner-appellant treating it to be an agricultural land. 6. Ms. Anita Agarwal, the learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. She submitted that the offer given by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, in the notice dt. 03.12.1996 to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard, was subject to the final decision of the City Monitoring Committee. The offer so given was in the form of show cause only for the purpose of placing the matter of the petitioner- appellant before the City Monitoring Committee. The City Monitoring Committee headed by the District Collector, in its meeting dt. 180/- per square yard, was subject to the final decision of the City Monitoring Committee. The offer so given was in the form of show cause only for the purpose of placing the matter of the petitioner- appellant before the City Monitoring Committee. The City Monitoring Committee headed by the District Collector, in its meeting dt. 12.12.1996, taking note of the report of the Sub Registrar, Jhunjhunu, had rightly decided to pay to the petitioner- appellant the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. The learned counsel referred to the letter dt. 16.06.1997 sent by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, whereby the petitioner-appellant was sent the amount of Rs. 92,000/- as compensation vide Cheque No. 352243 dt. 02.06.1997 for acquisition of his land measuring 1 bigha and 3 biswa. It is argued that the DLC rate of the disputed land, as on that date was only Rs. 50,000/- per bigha but considering that twenty-three years have gone by, the penal interest would also be paid to the petitioner-appellant. The rate was enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. The learned counsel referred to the additional affidavit of the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, which was filed before the learned Single Judge, to justify the payment of compensation to the petitioner-appellant at the rate prescribed for the agricultural land. The learned Single Judge by order dt. 22.05.2007, directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner-appellant for allotment of the developed land to the extent of 15% to 20% in lieu of his acquired land by the respondents but the aforesaid application was rightly rejected by the Committee headed by the Chairperson of the Municipal Board as the Circulars dt. 13.12.2001 and 27.10.2005 could not be applied in the matter especially when the City Monitoring Committee had already decided to pay the compensation to the petitioner-appellant at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. It is argued that the land of the petitioner-appellant at the time when it was acquired for construction of road to link two colonies, was essentially an agricultural land and, therefore, there Was no justification for paying him the compensation at the rate prescribed for residential area. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, by notice dt. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, by notice dt. 03.12.1996, called upon the petitioner-appellant to give his consent for acquisition of a part of his land measuring 3506.66 square yard of khasra no. 497/2. It was further stated that he may be paid the compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard and that he should give his consent in writing so that his matter may be placed before the City Monitoring Committee for determination of compensation. It is obvious from the notice that the respondents did not acquire the land of the petitioner-appellant by recourse to proceeds under the Land Acquisition Act then prevailing. The acquisition of the land was being made on the basis of the consent of the petitioner- appellant. The letter of offer did not explicitly state that even if the petitioner-appellant gave his acceptance to acquisition of the land against compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard, this rate on which acceptance was given would not be valid if eventually the respondents decided to acquire the land. What was, however, stated was that the petitioner-appellant was required to give his consent in writing so that his matter could be placed before the City Monitoring Committee for determination of the compensation. The reply to the said notice submitted by the petitioner-appellant on 11.12.1996 was quite categorical. Therein, the petitioner-appellant agreed for acquisition of a part (3506.66 square yard) of his land bearing khasra no. 497/2 at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard. He also additionally demanded the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for demolition of one room as also the boundary wall of the land. The petitioner-appellant subsequently submitted an application to the Administrator, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, lodging a protest with them that initially the respondents intended to construct only 40' wide road, to which he gave his consent but now they wanted to construct 60' wide road, which would necessitate demolition of his three additional rooms and, therefore, he should be paid further compensation. 9. The report, which the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, sought from the Sub Registrar (Registration), Jhunjhunu, dt. 18.11.1996 categorically states that recently a residential plot was sold out of the land of khasra no. 497/2 and the DLC rate of the area was Rs. 180/- per square yard. 9. The report, which the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, sought from the Sub Registrar (Registration), Jhunjhunu, dt. 18.11.1996 categorically states that recently a residential plot was sold out of the land of khasra no. 497/2 and the DLC rate of the area was Rs. 180/- per square yard. It further stated that the rate of the agricultural land in between crossing of Mandawa Road Housing Board and Churu-Bisau Byepass is Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. He also stated that the rate of the agricultural land away from the road and the locality is Rs. 52,000/- per bigha and the rate of the agricultural land at the distance of two kilometer from the road is Rs. 42,000/- per bigha. He also stated that the DLC rate of the land is not as per khasra-wise but area-wise. The respondents have ignored earlier part of the report dt. 18.11.1996 where the reference was made to the sale-deed of a residential plot sold out of the land of the same khasra number and have adopted the latter part of the report, where the mention was made about the rate of the agricultural land. Considering that the respondents themselves offered to pay the compensation to the petitioner- appellant at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard for the land of khasra no. 497/2 on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar, Jhunjhunu, where he has mentioned that the sale-deed of a residential plot out of the land of khasra no. 497/2 was registered at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard, which was the DLC rate of the area as per the record, there was no justification why the petitioner-appellant should not be paid the compensation at that rate, more so when the City Monitoring Committee itself took note in its proceedings of the fact that the land was required for constructing a link road from existing Basant Vihar colony to Pandit Deen Dayal Nagar. This proved that the land was situated in the residential area. Merely because the land in question continued to be shown in the revenue record as the agricultural land, does not disprove the fact that the same was being used for residential purpose as it was falling between two residential colonies and thus it had come within urbanization limit of the Municipal Board. Moreover, the petitioner-appellant initially in his reply dt. 11.12.1996 to the said notice dt. Moreover, the petitioner-appellant initially in his reply dt. 11.12.1996 to the said notice dt. 03.12.1996 has referred to demolition of one room and the boundary wall. In the subsequent application which the petitioner-appellant submitted to the Administrator of the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, he also referred to the necessity of demolition of three additional rooms since the width of the road was sought to be enhanced from 40' to 60', also goes to show that the land was not being used for agriculture purpose. Even if, therefore, the respondents did not agree to give the developed land in lieu of the acquired land of the petitioner-appellant, in the light of the Circulars dt. 13.12.2001 and 27.03.2005 issued by the Government in its UDH Department, as the City Monitoring Committee in its meeting dt. 12.12.1996 headed by the District Collector, taking note of the report of the Sub Registrar, Jhunjhunu, had decided to pay to the petitioner- appellant the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha, the petitioner-appellant, in the considered view of this Court, ought to be paid the compensation at the rate originally offered by the respondents. The respondents cannot, in an arbitrary manner, take possession of the land of a citizen without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and when they did so on the basis of the consent obtained from a citizen by offering a particular rate of compensation and having obtained such consent, would be estopped from going back upon that stand by doctrine of estoppel. The respondents, acting upon the said offer of the petitioner-appellant, gave consent. The respondent, on that basis, took possession of the land and constructed the road. Even otherwise, the petitioner-appellant originally consented for acquisition of the land for construction of 40' wide road but thereafter unilaterally decided to enhance the width of the road by 20' and in that process three additional rooms of the petitioner- appellant had to be demolished. 10. In view of the above, we are persuaded to allow this writ petition. It is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dt. 23.08.2007 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. It appears that the respondents finally paid to the petitioner-appellant the compensation for the acquired 1 bigha and 3 biswa land comprising of khasra no. 497/2. 10. In view of the above, we are persuaded to allow this writ petition. It is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dt. 23.08.2007 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. It appears that the respondents finally paid to the petitioner-appellant the compensation for the acquired 1 bigha and 3 biswa land comprising of khasra no. 497/2. This measurement has not been disputed by the petitioner-appellant and, therefore, the respondent would be required to pay the compensation @ Rs. 180/- per square yard. The petitioner-appellant would also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Compliance of the order be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of a copy of this order before the respondents. This also disposes of the stay application.