Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan Housing Board vs Legal Representatives Of Decased ... on 8 December, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 361/2022
Rajasthan Housingh Board, Through Dy. Housing Commissioner
And Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Hema Ram S/o Tulsi Ram, By Cate Mali, R/o Kheme Ka
Kua, Jodhpur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 426/2022
Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Dy. Housing Commissioner
And Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Legal Representatives Of Decased Plaintiff Mani Ram,
Through
2. Gensha Ram S/o Mani Ram, (Name Deleted)
3. Legal Representatives Of Deceased Roopa Devi, Through
4. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Roopa Devi, W/o Chhotuji, Resident
Of Village Chokha Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
5. Smt. Bichhu Devi D/o Roopa Devi, W/o Aaidan, Resident
Of Village Chokha Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
6. Smt. Devi D/o Roopa Devi, W/o Premji, Resident Of
Village Chokha Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
7. Smt. Chukia Devi D/o Roopa Devi, W/o Kishanji, Resident
Of Village Chokha Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
8. Smt. Babu Devi D/o Roopa Devi, W/o Ganga Ramji,
Resident Of Village Golasani Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
9. (Name Of Respondent No. 1/2/1 To 1/2/5 Substituted By)
1/2/1. Sohan Lal S/o Ganesh Ram, By Caste Mali
Resident Of Khema Ka Kua, Jodhpur.
10. 1/2/2. Sher Singh S/o Ganesh Ram, By Caste Mali
Resident Of Khema Ka Kua, Jodhpur.
11. Kishan Lal S/o Ganesh Ram, By Caste Mali Resident Of
Khema Ka Kua, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
12. Babu Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal, By Caste Mali Resident Of
Khema Ka Kua, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
13. Chhotu Ram S/o Pokar Ram, By Caste Mali Resident Of
Khema Ka Kua, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
14. Moola Ram S/o Kishna Ram, By Caste Jat Resident Of
Masuria.
15. Panna Lal S/o Ratan Lal, By Caste Brahmin Resident Of
(2 of 3) [SAW-361/2022]
Kheme Ka Kua, Jodhpur.
16. Ganesha Ram S/o Mani Ram, By Caste Mali, Resident Of
Kheme Ka Kua, Jodhpur.
17. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shashank Joshi, Mr. Sourabh Kant
Vyas and Mr. Lalit Parihar
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/12/2022
Heard Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent.
These special appeals have been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 11th March 2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge. Though the controversy before the learned Single
Judge was with regard to the correctness of the judgments and
orders of the three Courts below including that of Board of
Revenue and as such, was a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India but the learned Single Judge went a step
ahead in deciding the petition and declared that the land
acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act'), as
the physical possession of the land had not been taken.
(3 of 3) [SAW-361/2022]
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that
the above declaration made by the learned Single Judge is in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and therefore, the appellant has a right to maintain these appeals.
In addition to this, the further submission is that the learned
Single Judge has manifestly erred in law in making a distinction
between the symbolic and physical possession whereas, the Act
makes no such distinction and that taking of possession by
executing a Panchnama is sufficient for vesting the land in the
State.
Since in one of the identical matters a special appeal has
already been allowed and the decision thereof has already been
affirmed inasmuch as the SLP against it has been dismissed on
28.01.2019, we are inclined to entertain these appeals.
Learned counsel for the respondents may seek necessary
instructions in the matter and file response, if so desires.
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General is
directed to appear on behalf of the State. A copy of memo of
appeal be supplied to him. He may seek necessary instructions
and file response, if he so desires.
List these appeals in the first week of February, 2023.
Until further orders of this Court, the parties are directed to
maintain the status quo with regard to the nature and possession
of the land in dispute.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
3,4-Jayesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
