The Union Of India vs Nathulal S/O Shri Ramjilal
2021 Latest Caselaw 7749 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 839/2021

1.     The Union Of India, Through The General Manger, North
       Western Railway, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.     The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), North Western
       Railway, Dausa (Raj.) Now Designated As Deputy Chief
       Engineer/con/ii/nwr/jaipur.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     Nathulal S/o Shri Ramjilal, Resident Of Didwana, Tehsil
       Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
2.     Kailash Prasad S/o Shri Ramjilal, Resident Of Didwana,
       Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
3.     Murari Lal S/o Shri Ramjilal, Resident Of Didwana, Tehsil
       Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
4.     Land Acquisition Officer, Dausa - Gangapur Rail Marg,
       Deputy District Collector, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
5.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
       Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
       (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma Mr. Vishwas Sharma, Mr. Madhav Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG Mr. Bharat Vyas with Mr. Lokesh Jangid

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Order

17/12/2021

This appeal is filed by the railway authorities to challenge the

judgment of the learned single judge dated 05.08.2021 passed in writ

petition No.6353/2018.

(2 of 4) [SAW-839/2021]

We have heard learned counsel for the parties for disposal of the

appeal.

The case presents rather unusual and somewhat disturbing facts

which are as under:

The railway authorities in order to lay down railway line had

initiated acquisition proceedings of the lands situated in district Dausa

for which purpose notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1894') was published

in the official gazette on 23.09.2009. According to the railway

authorities after completing various stages envisaged under the Act of

1894, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 08.08.2012

which was amended by subsequent amended award dated 24.09.2012.

The railway authorities have also deposited the awarded amount

through cheque dated 19.10.2012.

The respondents No.1 to 3 the original land owners whose lands

were part of the acquisition, through their advocates have contended

that they had sought a reference against the award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer since they wanted the compensation to be enhanced.

However the Collector failed to make a reference before the district

court. Be that as it may, these respondents filed a revision petition

before the district court and sought enhancement in the compensation

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Pending this revision petition,

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as

'the Act of 2013') was promulgated. These respondents therefore

contended before the reference court that since neither compensation

has been paid as per the award nor possession of the acquired land

taken over, in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the acquisition

should be seen to have lapsed. It appears that there was no matching

prayer to this effect in the revision petition. Significantly the railway

(3 of 4) [SAW-839/2021]

authorities for which acquisition was being done, was also not joined as

a respondent.

Interestingly the district court in the said revision petition passed

an order dated 11.04.2016 and made a declaration of lapsing of

acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

When the railway authorities came to know about this order, they

challenged the same before the learned single judge by the writ

petition. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single judge

by the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 in which after recording the

relevant facts, learned single judge did agree that the district court had

no jurisdiction to make a declaration of lapsing of the acquisition.

However proceeding on the basis that admittedly neither compensation

was paid nor possession of the land taken over, learned single judge

observed that what the district judge has done is to make a mere

statement of facts relating to Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Eventually

the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition imposing a cost of

Rs.1,00,000/- on the erring officials of the railway administration. The

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development

Authority Vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129

was cited and noticed. It is this judgment of the learned single judge

which the railway authorities have challenged in this appeal.

In our view the district court as well as the learned single judge

committed serious legal errors. To begin with, the district court had no

jurisdiction to make a declaration of lapsing of the acquisition in terms

of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 in a revision petition or otherwise.

Secondly there was no specific prayer to this effect. Thirdly the railway

administration for whose benefit the acquisition was done, was not

joined as respondent. The railways though vitally interested and from

whose coffers the compensation whether under the Act of 1894 or

revised rates under the Act of 2013 would be paid, was a necessary

(4 of 4) [SAW-839/2021]

party, was not joined as respondent. Even the impact of declaration of

lapsing of acquisition would immediately be felt by the railway

authorities. Last but not least the revision petition for enhancement of

compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not a

remedy known to law. Ignoring all these serious legal defects, learned

single judge refused to set aside the order passed by the learned

district court which was wholly without jurisdiction merely on the

ground that what the district court has done is to declare a fact which is

even otherwise undisputable. When the district court lacked jurisdiction

any declaration of fact or law would be rendered ineffective. More

importantly even before making a declaration of lapsing of acquisition in

terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, various aspects have to be

minutely examined by the High Court. We do not find it an admitted

position of the railway administration that neither compensation was

paid nor possession taken over. In view of such serious legal errors

committed by the district court as well as the learned single judge, we

allow this appeal, reverse the judgment of the learned single judge and

set aside the order passed by the district court in the revision petition.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                   (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                               (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI / FRB/30









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)