Rajasthan High Court
Brij Mohan Jain Son Of Dal Chand ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 999/2021
Brij Mohan Jain Son Of Dal Chand Jain, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of House No. 5563, Ward No. 09, Near Jain Mandir,
Janipuri, Rewari (Haryana).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Industry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Riico, 22 Godwon, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. A.K. Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with
Mr. J.S. Shekhawat
Ms. Sheetal Mirdha with
Mr. Prateek Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
15/12/2021
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
single judge dated 27.10.2021 dismissing the writ petition
No.5780/2018 filed by the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of land
bearing Khasra No.433 of Village Karoli, Tehsil Tijara, District
Alwar (Rajasthan). This land along with other neighboring land
was subject matter of acquisition by RIICO for which a notification
(2 of 4) [SAW-999/2021]
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to
be referred as 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 23.09.1997 and
published in official gazette on 04.10.1997. The acquisition
proceedings proceeded further thereafter. After completing various
steps envisaged under the Act of 1894, an award was passed by
the land acquisition officer under Section 11 of the Act on
12.01.2001. According to the department the majority of the land
owners accepted the compensation. The petitioner and some other
persons did not. Thereupon the compensation was deposited
before the reference court on 14.11.2008 and possession of the
acquired land was taken from the petitioner and other similarly
situated occupants on 24.12.2008. The petitioner approached the
learned single judge contending that neither compensation was
paid for the land supposedly acquired nor possession was taken
from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, according to the
petitioner, in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the said
Act of 2013'), the acquisition under the old Act of 1894 would
lapse.
Before the learned single judge the respondents appeared
and filed its reply contending that the notification under Section
4(1) was published on 04.10.1997 which was also affixed at
conspicuous places near acquired land on 18.12.1997. The
objections received in response to such notifications were
disposed of by the competent authority after which Section 6
notification was published on 24/26.12.1998 in the official gazette.
The same was also published in the local newspapers and affixed
at conspicuous places in the neighborhood. Finally the award was
(3 of 4) [SAW-999/2021]
passed by the land acquisition officer on 12.01.2001. Pursuant to
the award majority of the land owners accepted the compensation
on or around 19.03.2001. Compensation payable to the rest of the
claimants was deposited before the reference court on 14.11.2008
and possession was taken over by drawing a punchnama on
24.12.2008 by RIICO. The petition which was filed in the year
2018 thus was grossly belated.
The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition relying
heavily on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 against which present
appeal has been filed.
Along with the appeal the petitioner has also filed an
application for taking additional documents on record. These
documents principally are in the nature of photographs which the
petitioner contends relate to the site in question. Firstly there is
no reason cited why such documents were not produced in the
writ petition. Secondly in any case photographs cannot establish
the factum of possession legally having been taken over or not.
The request for bringing the additional documents on record is
therefore refused. The application is dismissed.
Coming to the correctness of the order passed by the learned
single judge, we notice that the issues sought to be raised by the
petitioner in the present writ petition and thereafter in this appeal
are substantially covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra). Referring to Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013, it was held that the consequence of lapsing of the
acquisition under the Act of 1894 would arise only when both the
(4 of 4) [SAW-999/2021]
conditions of non-payment of compensation as well as possession
not having been taken over are satisfied. It is also held that once
the Government or acquiring authority deposits compensation
payable to the land owners before the reference court, the
requirement of tendering compensation under the Act of 1894
stands satisfied. In the present case as pointed out by the
respondents the compensation was already deposited in the
reference court and possession was already taken over when the
Act of 1894 was still in operation. Requirements for the
applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 were not satisfied.
The learned single judge correctly dismissed the writ petition.
The appeal is dismissed. Nothing stated in the order will
prevent the petitioner from approaching the authorities for
availing the benefits of any scheme if there is any.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N.Gandhi /FR Bohra/49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
