Krishan Pal Dheer vs State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6009 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4679/2017

Krishan Pal Dheer S/o Shri Dilla Ram Dheer, Aged about 80
years, R/o J-130, Ashok Chowk Road, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan


                                                                ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State of Rajasthan thorough Principal Secretary, Urban
       Development       and      Housing        Department,     Government
       Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary, Indira
       Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
3.     The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, Jaipur Development
       Authority, Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur


                                                                -Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ram Chandra Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.Amit Kuri, Adv.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                    Order

31/08/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to allot him 25% developed land (20% residential i.e.

420 Square Meter and 5% commercial land i.e. 105 Square Meter)

in lieu of compensation and further action of the respondents-JDA

to only allot 315 Square Meter land, is sought to be declared

illegal with a further prayer for allotment of 105 Square Meter

residential land and 105 Square Meter commercial land, to the

petitioner in any JDA scheme.

(2 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

The brief facts of case are that the petitioner is a recorded

Khatedar of the land bearing Khasra No.1954, measuring 2.69

hectare situated in Revenue Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer,

District Jaipur.

The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-JDA had

acquired land of the petitioner measuring 2100 Square Meter out

of 2.69 Hectare for setting up Ralavta Sewerage Treatment Plant.

The petitioner has pleaded that on account of acquisition of

his land by the respondents-JDA, he submitted an application

dated 25.08.2015 to the Secretary, JDA, Jaipur for allotment of

25% developed land in favour of the petitioner in the area of

Ramnagariya or Goner Ring Road, as per circular of the State

Government.

The petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner executed an

agreement/declaration dated 26.08.2015 with the Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur, regarding surrender of his land-

measuring 2100 Square Meter, free of cost to the respondents in

lieu of 25% compensation.

The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-JDA

Authorities at one point of time decided that the petitioner was to

get 25% developed land and as such, the petitioner was held

entitled for 525 Square Meter of land in lieu of 25% compensation.

The petitioner has submitted that the said power was to be

exercised as per Section 44 of Jaipur Development Authority Act,

1982.

The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued a

reservation letter dated 22.09.2015 in favour of the petitioner

regarding 25% developed land measuring 525 Square Meter (20%

(3 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

residential land equivalent to 420 Square Meter and 5%

commercial land equivalent to 105 Square Meter).

The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-JDA issued

an allotment letter dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure-5) whereby they

mentioned that the petitioner was entitled for 25% of mixed use

land and the said allotment letter was in the scheme known as

Ring Road Scheme.

The petitioner has pleaded that while prescribing the area,

the respondents mentioned only 315 Square Meter of allotment of

land and as per the reservation letter dated 22.09.2015 issued in

favour of the petitioner, but total land was not allotted to him.

The petitioner has pleaded that he submitted a

representation/objection dated 03.11.2016 before the

Commissioner, JDA, whereby, he made a request that the

petitioner was entitled to get mixed land in lieu of compensation of

land measuring 525 Square Meter, but the allotment was made of

315 Square Meter of mixed land by the respondent-JDA.

The petitioner has pleaded that the representation submitted

by the petitioner was decided on 24.02.2017, whereby the

petitioner was informed that he was not entitled to get 25% mixed

use land in lieu of compensation, as the land of the petitioner was

agriculture in nature.

The petitioner has pleaded that as per the circular, issued by

the State Government dated 27.10.2005 as well as the circular

dated 04.12.2015, issued by the JDA, the petitioner was entitled

to get 25% developed land in lieu of compensation.

The petitioner has also pleaded that the respondent-JDA has

made discrimination in allotment of land to him, as similarly

situated persons, whose land was acquired for the purpose of

(4 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

making Ring Road, such persons were given 25% of land by the

respondent-JDA, while the petitioner has not been given the same

area of land in lieu of compensation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma

submitted that the action of the JDA, suffers from discrimination

and arbitrariness as against the land of the petitioner which was

given to the JDA for setting up of Sewerage Treatment Plant, the

JDA Authorities were required to allot total 25% land in favour of

the petitioner and accordingly the reservation letter dated

22.05.2019 was also issued whereby petitioner was held entitled

for 20% residential land i.e. 420 Square Meter and 5%

commercial land i.e. 105 Square Meter in lieu of compensation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent-JDA in most arbitrary manner made a reference of

mixed use land, allotted to the petitioner, which is not 25% of the

total land, which was to be given to the petitioner and in fact they

have allotted only 15% of land in favour of the petitioner, by

issuing lease deed/patta dated 14.01.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other

similarly situated persons whose land was also acquired by the

respondent-JDA for construction of Ring Road, that all have been

given 25% of land in lieu of their acquired land and the petitioner

whose land is situated only about 300 yards away from the Ring

Road project, has been denied similar allotment by the

respondent-JDA as such, hostile discrimination has been made by

the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

relevant details, with regard to the allotment of land to the

similarly situated persons, have already been filed with the writ

(5 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

petition and even the lease deed issued in favour of such persons,

are part of record and as such, the respondent-JDA Authorities

even while filing reply to the writ petition are not been able to

controvert such fact.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

the petitioner, before approaching this Court, had made a request

to the respondent-JDA Authorities that the land, which was given

by the petitioner to the JDA Authorities, was near the Ring Road

and if 25% of land was to be offered to the petitioner, he was

prepared to take such land at a suitable place, including the

Nilyakunj Scheme of the JDA, as the reserved price of the land of

the petitioner and reserved price of land of different persons, at

Ring Road was same. However, the JDA Authorities did not look

into the entire aspect of the matter and in an arbitrary manner,

they decided that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of

25% of land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

the reasons assigned by the respondent-JDA for not allotting 25%

of the land in favour of the petitioner, is totally based on irrelevant

considerations.

Learned counsel submitted that the land of the petitioner is

classified as Barani-A and the Ring Road farmers, whose land was

acquired, also owned the land of the same category i.e. Barani-A.

Learned counsel submitted that the land of the petitioner

falls in the category of U-2, as was the land of other persons and

as such, no artificial discrimination could have been made by the

respondent-JDA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the circular

dated 27.10.2005 of giving option to the petitioner to take 15%

(6 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

mixed use land, cannot be made applicable as the said circular

only provides for 25% developed land to be given to the

Khatedars and the petitioner, at no point of time, had raised any

grievance against the reservation letter, which was issued by the

respondent-JDA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

respondents by making wrong interpretation of the circular, have

allotted 15% mixed use land instead of 25%, and the petitioner

being bonafide owner of his land, which has been surrendered to

the respondent-JDA for making Sewerage Plant, cannot be put to

loss and as such, the respondent-JDA Authorities are required to

comply with the directions, which have been issued by the State

Government for issuing suitable land to the petitioner.

Learned counsel-Mr. Amit Kuri, appearing for the respondent-

JDA has first raised the preliminary objections and submits that

the petitioner has executed the lease deed in favour of the

respondent-JDA and after execution of lease deed, he does not

have any right to assail the said lease deed, alleging that

adequate area has not been allotted to him.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has also

concealed the fact regarding petitioner's consent to allot 15% land

instead of 25% and the petitioner had, in fact, submitted an

application dated 30.11.2015 whereby he made a request that the

mixed use land may be allotted to him and he was prepared to

take lesser area of mixed use land instead of 25%.

Learned counsel submitted that the fact of submitting

application by the petitioner has been concealed from this Court

and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any equitable relief

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(7 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

Learned counsel further submitted that the Ring Road area

i.e. mixed use area, for allotment of land is not applicable in the

present case of the petitioner, as the land of the petitioner was not

acquired for Ring Road and even if the land of the petitioner, is

abutting the Ring Road or it is in the near vicinity, the same will

not result into grant of 25% land in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has

tried to blow hot and cold together, as on the one hand, he initially

agreed to take 25% land and later on he agreed to take mixed use

land, which is of more value and importance and the petitioner

himself submitted an application for grant of such mixed use land

in his favour and accordingly, the respondent-JDA, has allotted

mixed use land to him.

Learned counsel submitted that the circular dated

04.12.2015, issued by the respondent-JDA deals with different

situations, where the compensation/land in lieu of acquired land

was to be dealt with on Sector Road in different schemes of JDA.

Learned counsel submitted that the land, which is now

allotted to the petitioner of mixed use, is at the Ring Road and the

petitioner will be able to make commercial use of the said land

and as such, the decision which has been taken by the Authorities

is absolutely in consonance with the circular dated 04.12.2015,

issued by the JDA Authorities.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a

judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5778/2006 (Sudha Parhar Vs. Jaipur Development

Authority), decided on 20.11.2014.

Learned counsel, on the strength of said judgment,

submitted that once the lease deed is executed and contract of

(8 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

exchange is fully executed and sealed, then the person cannot be

allowed to agitate his rights to claim further land and as such, the

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot

be entertained by the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a

judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur

Improvement Trust Vs. Vithal Rao reported in AIR 1973

Supreme Court 689.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said

judgment, submitted that no classification can be made on the

basis of public purpose as also on the basis of compensation, for

which the land is acquired.

Learned counsel, on the strength of the said judgment,

submitted that if the land of the petitioner is also in the vicinity of

Ring Road and the other similarly situated persons have been

granted compensation, then no discrimination should be allowed

to be made only on location of the land of the petitioner.

I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that initially a reservation letter dated

22.09.2015 was issued by the respondent-JDA, wherein, they

decided to allot 25% developed land to the petitioner i.e. 20%

residential land and 5% commercial land measuring 420 Square

Meter and 105 Square Meter, respectively.

This Court finds that the respondent-JDA issued lease deed

dated 14.01.2016 in favour of the petitioner, whereby the

petitioner was allotted a land for mixed use measuring 300 Square

Meter in the Ring Road Scheme. There is yet another allotment

(9 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

letter of the same date, of 12.5 Square Meter in favour of the

petitioner of mixed use land.

This Court finds that the petitioner submitted an application

dated 16.11.2015 before the respondent-JDA Authorities, wherein

he made a request that if area of the land as mentioned in the

reservation letter dated 22.09.2015, which has been issued to him

and the land which he surrendered to the respondent-JDA,

situated near Ring Road and there was no difference in their

reserve price, then the area allotted to him of 525 Square Meter,

may be reduced or increased. The said letter dated 16.11.2015

has been shown to this Court by learned counsel for the

respondent-JDA from the office file.

This Court finds that the respondents in their reply have also

mentioned about the application submitted by the petitioner for

allotment of mixed use land and as such, before issuance of lease

deed on 14.01.2016 and after issuance of reservation letter dated

22.09.2015, the petitioner himself has submitted before the

respondent-JDA Authorities that the reservation, which has been

made for allotment of 25% developed land, may be considered for

the purpose of allotment of land to him near the Ring Road.

This Court further finds that the petitioner subsequently has

again addressed a letter to the JDA Authorities on 30.11.2015,

wherein, he made a request that the JDA Authorities were having

another scheme known as "Nilay Kunj Scheme" and the Ring

Road, which was being constructed by the JDA was also having a

reserved price of the same value then the petitioner could be

allotted land in the Nilay Kunj Scheme of the JDA.

This Court finds that if the allotment letter dated 22.09.2015

was issued, whereby 25% of the developed land was to be given

(10 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

to the petitioner and he himself submitted an application before

the respondents-JDA Authorities for allotting him land of mixed

use, and no such fault is found to have been committed by JDA

Authorities while taking decision to allot land to the petitioner.

This Court further finds that the petitioner is claiming parity

with those persons whose land has been acquired for the Ring

Road Scheme of the JDA and the location of land of the petitioner

is not in the same vicinity, which has been acquired for the

purpose of construction of Ring Road and if his land is situated

near the vicinity of Ring Road, the same does not confer any right

in favour of the petitioner to say that he has to be given similar

area of land, which has been given to the other persons, whose

land has been acquired by the respondent-JDA for the purpose of

construction of Ring Road.

This Court finds little substance in the submission made by

learned counsel for the petitioner that land of the petitioner was

situated near the same vicinity and it is only about 300 yards

away, and JDA itself had issued Patta to the similarly situated

persons and the same yardstick should be applied in the case of

the petitioner, suffice it to say by this Court that the location of the

petitioner is not on the Ring Road and those farmers whose land

was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ring Road, such

persons have been given land in lieu of their acquired land.

This Court also finds that the petitioner has been given land

of mixed use, on his own asking and the JDA Authorities have

given 15% of the mixed use land instead of 25% i.e. 20%

residential land and 5% commercial land and the land, which has

been offered to the petitioner, is having the commercial value, as

(11 of 11) [CW-4679/2017]

the same is abutting the Ring Road and as such, no fault can be

found with the decision taken by the JDA Authorities.

Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the present writ

petition and the same is dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

Bhavnesh Kumawat/Ramesh Vaishnav

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)