Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1137 (RAJ)

Jhamku Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2025-04-21

SANDEEP SHAH

body2025
ORDER : SANDEEP SHAH, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions essentially challenging the amount of compensation awarded to them vide order dated 10.03.2015 as also praying for compliance of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as “Act of 2013”) and also with the prayer to redetermine the amount of the award as per the market value as given to adjoining agricultural land situated adjoining to the land of the petitioners. For sake of convenience the prayer made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4885/2018 is reproduced as under:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (A) The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (B) The respondents may by directed to redetermine the award of the petitioner by applying the marked value as given to land owners of adjoining agricultural lands situated adjoining to petitioner land which is Rs.115/- per sq. ft. (C) The respondents may be directed to calculate market value of petitioner land in proportionate of agricultural land of the neighbouring land owners; (D) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest and other ancillary benefit for which the petitioner is entitled to under the Act of 2013; (E) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (F) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a submission that for the near by agricultural land an amount of compensation paid is much higher than the amount paid for the land of the petitioners, which admittedly has been converted for residential purposes. He thus, submits that there is vast variation in the amount of compensation as regards the land of the petitioners and the adjoining agricultural land. He thus, submits that there is vast variation in the amount of compensation as regards the land of the petitioners and the adjoining agricultural land. He further submits thus, the award passed is cryptic and the adjudication, as far as compensation is concerned, is in-correct as the learned Collector has not adopted the criteria as provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013, for assessing and determining the market value of the land. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objections that against the award passed, remedy is available and even the petitioners have approached the reference Court prior to filing the present writ petition. One of such reference application, wherein notice have also been issued is placed on record as Annexure R-1 in the reply to Civil Writ Petition No. 4885/2018 (Smt. Sangeeta Jain vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.). It has further been submitted that the Act of 2013 is a code in itself and any person aggrieved against the amount of compensation as determined by the Collector under the award has alternative efficacious remedy to approach the reference Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has however supported the award and stated that the Collector has determined the market value based upon the criteria provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013 only. Learned counsel has also raised an objection that there is a gross delay in challenging the award as the same was passed on 10.03.2015, whereas the present writ petitions have been filed after three years delay in the years 2018. He thus, submits that on this count also the writ petitions deserves dismissal. 4. Admittedly, against the determination of amount of compensation through an award, a remedy has been provided under the Act of 2013 itself which is a complete code in itself pertaining to Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Law. A specific provision has been made under section 64 of the Act of 2013, which provides as under:- 64. Reference to Authority. 4. Admittedly, against the determination of amount of compensation through an award, a remedy has been provided under the Act of 2013 itself which is a complete code in itself pertaining to Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Law. A specific provision has been made under section 64 of the Act of 2013, which provides as under:- 64. Reference to Authority. –(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made— (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage informs the Court that the reference applications have already been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage informs the Court that the reference applications have already been dismissed. However, the fact remain that against the order dismissing the reference also there is remedy provided under the Act itself by way of filing of an appeal before the High Court under Section 74 of the Act of 2013. A specific provision has been made under section 74 of the Act of 2013, which provides as under:- “ 74. Appeal to High Court.- (1) The Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by the Award passed by an Authority under Section 69 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of Award: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. (2) Every appeal referred to under sub-section (1) shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of such appeal within six months from the date on which the appeal is presented to the High Court. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “High Court” means the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the land acquired or proposed to be acquired is situated. 6. It is thus, clear that the petitioners have been pursuing two remedies simultaneously. Not only this there is a gross delay in challenging the award inasmuch as the award was passed on 10.03.2015 and the writ petitions have been filed after a gross delay of three years in the year 2018 only. However, without going into all these aspects since, the petitioners has got an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 74 of the Act of 2013, wherein the validity of the reference order as also the award can be challenged, no case for interference of this Hon’ble Court is made out for, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to pursue, if so advised, the remedy under the Act of 2013 as permissible under the law.