Chamna vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9646 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 80/2020

Chamna S/o Shri Jethaji, Aged About 85 Years, Resident Of

Kumbhiya, Tehsil- Chitalwana, District- Jalore.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Collector, Jalore.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Nahar Project Circle,

Sanchore, District- Jalore.

4. Superintending Engineer, Narmada Nahar Project, Circle

Ii, Sanchore, District - Jalore

5. Executive Engineer, Narmada Nahar Project, Division V,

Sanchore, District- Jalore.

6. Assistant Engineer, Narmada Nahar Project, Division V,

Sanchore, District- Jalore.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                 Judgment

25/07/2022

The instant intra-court appeal was filed by the appellant Shri

Chamna for assailing the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by

learned Single Bench of this Court rejecting the writ petition

(No.3211/2019) filed by the petitioner.

(2 of 4) [SAW-80/2020]

The writ petition afore-stated was filed by the petitioner

alleging that the respondents unauthorizedly and without

undertaking the procedure for land acquisition as prescribed by

law, transgressed upon the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra

No.2726/169 situated in Village Kumbhiya, Tehsil Chitalwana,

District Jalore whereupon, the petitioner had constructed a

residential house.

It may be stated here that the land in question was acquired

for construction of the Narmada canal and its distributories. The

original writ petitioner, the, appellant herein Shri Chamna has

passed away. Counsel for the appellant vehemently pleaded that

he may be allowed to bring the LRs of the appellant on record.

It may be stated here that the writ petition of the petitioner

was dismissed by learned Single Bench of this Court on the ground

that the counsel who was representing the petitioner opted not to

press the writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be

directed to award compensation to the petitioner for covering the

loss caused to him on account of demolition of the house which

had been constructed by the late writ petitioner on the land in

question.

The State counsel, on the other hand, had opposed the

prayer of the petitioner's counsel to withdraw the writ petition and

pointed out that the land in question had been duly acquired

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Act of 1894") and the compensation, if any qua the

construction over the land could only be determined by the Land

(3 of 4) [SAW-80/2020]

Acquisition Officer. The Court thus, relegated the petitioner to

move appropriate application under Section 18A of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement/determination of

compensation. The State counsel fairly conceded that as the

petitioner was litigating for his rights, the application for

determination/enhancement of compensation would not be

opposed on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the writ petition was

disposed of leaving the petitioner at liberty to file the application

before the competent authority within a period of fifteen days

from the date of the order. Liberty was also given to the petitioner

to withdraw the amount of compensation already determined by

the Land Acquisition Officer subject to his right for seeking

enhancement.

Not being satisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed the

instant appeal which is delayed by 21 days. The petitioner has

levelled allegations against the learned counsel who represented

him before the learned Single Bench and has also filed a complaint

against him in the Bar Council.

Ex-facie, we are of the view that the allegations which have

been levelled by the appellant-petitioner against the lawyer are

totally unwarranted. It cannot be denied that the petitioner had

available to him statutory remedy under the Land Acquisition Act

for opposing the acquisition and for enhancement of

compensation, if so desire. Instead of availing the statutory

remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner preferred

the writ petition. Learned AAG Shri Beniwal submitted that the

(4 of 4) [SAW-80/2020]

respondent authorities offered compensation to the tune of

Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner but he refused the offer so made.

In view of these facts, we are of the firm view that the

instant appeal has not been filed with bonafide objectives. That

apart, the appellant has passed away. The date of his expiry has

not been made clear by the appellant's counsel. Otherwise also,

the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench

does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting

interference of this Court. Hence, the instant intra-court appeal

fails and is dismissed as having abated and so also on merits.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    28-Sudhir AsopA/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)