Rajasthan High Court
Bhanwar Lal Son Of Shri Nonda vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 14/2022
Bhanwar Lal Son Of Shri Nonda, Aged About 76 Years, Resident
Of Village Sawai Gatore, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self And
Udh Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Vikas Yojana, Jaipur
Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary,
Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
4. Shri Gyarsi Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Godhu Ram Sharma
Deceased, Through Legal Heirs
5. Rukmani Devi Wife Of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal, Resident Of
Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
6. Sitaram Sharma Son Of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal, Resident Of
Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
7. Rameshwar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal, Resident
Of Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
8. Radheshyam Sharma Son Of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal,
Resident Of Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
9. Shravan Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal,
Resident Of Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
10. Smt. Prabha Rani Gupta Wife Of Shri Vishan Swaroop
Gupta, Resident Of Plot No. 168, Shriji Nagar, Durgapura,
Tonk Road, Jaipur.
11. Panchu Ram Sharma S/o Late Shri Lalram, R/o Village
Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.
12. Smt Hemlata Saluja W/o Shri Chamanlal Saluja, R/o A-
(Downloaded on 27/01/2022 at 08:59:29 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-14/2022]
607, Malviya Nagar, Opp. Engineering College, Jaipur.
13. Babita Dutta W/o Shri Rajeev Dutta, R/o A-624, Siddarath
Nagar A, Sawai Gatore, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas through VC
For Respondent : Mr. Prahlad Sharma through VC
For Respondent : Mr. M. Faisal Baig for JDA through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
21/01/2022
This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 02.12.2021 in writ petition No.4564/2004. The
appellant-original petitioner was a co-owner of a parcel of land
situated in the city of Jaipur. The State Government had initiated
acquisition proceeding for acquiring such lands. The writ petition
was filed with a prayer for a direction to the authorities to allot
15% of the developed land to the petitioner in lieu of the cash
compensation in a nearby scheme of the Jaipur Development
Authority as per the Government policy. Further direction sought
was not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question till
allotment of such land. The writ petition came to be opposed
strongly by the respondents which included the State Government
as well as the Jaipur Development Authority. The writ petition was
dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge
was of the opinion that the award was passed for acquiring the
land in question by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.01.1975.
The possession was taken on 02.07.1982. The compensation was
also deposited before the Civil Court on 09.12.1999. Under the
(3 of 6) [SAW-14/2022]
circumstances, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge the land
vested in the State Government and such acquisition proceedings
cannot be challenged. Reference was made to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in
which the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 came up for consideration. The
learned Judge was of the opinion that in case where the award
was passed in the year 1975, the writ petition was filed in 2004
was highly belated. Inter alia on such grounds writ petition was
dismissed. It is against this judgment that the original petitioner
has filed this appeal.
Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that learned
Single Judge committed an error in treating the petition as
challenging the acquisition proceedings which the petitioner had
not. The prayer of the petitioner was to allot land in lieu of the
acquired land. The request of the petitioner has not been
considered by the authorities and was also not considered by the
learned Single Judge.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the appeal. In particular, counsel for the respondent
Nos.4 and 5, the private respondents drew our attention to an
affidavit filed by them in writ petition which was filed on or around
28.02.2011 in which they have pointed out that the disputed land
was the subject matter of sale agreement dated 20.04.1986
executed by the petitioner and his two brothers in favour of New
Pink City Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti (hereinafter to be referred as
Cooperative Society) for sale consideration of Rs.3,19,910/- which
(4 of 6) [SAW-14/2022]
was received by them through cheque. It is pointed out in the said
affidavit that an order was passed by the State Government on
18.01.1990 for conversation and regularisation of the sanction of
the said scheme. It is further pointed out that a conversion order
was also passed by the Additional Collector on 30.12.1985 in
relation to another scheme called Siddharth Nagar. The
Cooperative Society in question thereafter came to be developed
and the society has also allotted plots in favour of the members.
They are lawful owners and occupiers of the respective plots since
then. The deponent has produced the agreement to sale dated
20.04.1986 along with the said affidavit. Counsel submitted that
originally the agreement to sale was executed by the father of the
petitioner in the year 1975. After the death of the father of the
petitioner, his other brothers confirmed the agreement and that is
how the cooperative society came into existence and in possession
of the land in question which has been developed with the
conversion and regularisation permission granted by the
Government. The plot owners are occupying the plots since
decades. He submitted that all these facts were concealed by the
petitioner. He pointed out that to the said affidavit filed by the
respondent Nos.4 and 5 the petitioner has filed no rejoinder.
Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that
these facts have been denied by the petitioner in rejoinder to the
reply filed by respondent No.3. In any case these aspects must be
examined by the authorities and not by the Division Bench at the
first instance. He lastly contended that the petitioner and other
family members belong to Scheduled Tribe and any agreement to
sale executed by them would be invalid.
(5 of 6) [SAW-14/2022]
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, we are not inclined to entertain
this appeal. It may be that the learned Single Judge has treated
the petition as one challenging the acquisition proceedings
whereas the prime prayer of the petitioner was for allocation of
developed land in lieu of the acquired land as per the scheme of
the Government. However in view of the materials on record this
prayer also cannot be granted. We have noted that respondent
Nos.4 and 5 have brought on record that there were multiple
transactions executed with respect to the land in question. The
first transaction was of the year 1975 stated to have been
executed by the father of the petitioner. Later on after the death
of the father, the successors executed an agreement in favour of
the cooperative society. The record would show that some of the
cheques were received by the petitioner. This happened in the
year 1986 and thereafter. The writ petition was filed in the year
2004. In the meantime the Government has passed regularisation
and conversion orders. As per the reply of the respondent Nos. 4
and 5 the society had not only come into existence but the
plotting was also done and as such plots were allotted to members
of the society. Without revealing any of these facts the petitioner
approached this Court in the year 2004 claiming that since his
land is acquired by the Government, as per the scheme of the
government, in lieu of compensation, he may be alloted
developed land. Learned Single Judge has recorded that even the
compensation was deposited in the civil court long before filing of
the writ petition.
The petitioner surely cannot hope to be compensated in
terms of allotment of developed piece of land in relation to a plot
(6 of 6) [SAW-14/2022]
of land in regard to which his family and himself has entered into
transactions with third parties. This would amount to cheating the
Government and seeking double benefits. Surely whatever the
stand of the petitioner with respect to such transactions, he
cannot claim ignorance about such developments. His act of non-
disclosing these facts in the petition would amount to serious
suppression and would dis-entitle him from claiming any equitable
relief from the Court in writ jurisdiction. Accepting his contention
that transaction executed by him or his family members would not
be valid since they belong to Scheduled Tribe, would amount to
granting double benefit and allowing him to take advantage of his
own wrong.
For all these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N.Gandhi/11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
