Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 March, 2022
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16476/2019
1. Durga Ram S/o Shri Bhiya Ram, Aged About 56 Years.
2. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Bhiya Ram, Aged About 58 Years.
Both are by Caste Sirvi, R/o Village Khariya Mithapur,
Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, P.w.d.
Department, Jaipur.
2. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer),
P.w.d., Jodhpur Section.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), S.d.o
Bilara, Bar-Bilara-Jodhpur Section.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Bar-Bilara-
Jodhpur Section) Project Implement Unit, N.h.a.i., Project
Implementation Unit, Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12044/2019
1. Bagdaram, Aged About 44 Years,
2. Sunil S/o Himtaram, Aged About 20 Years,
Both R/o Village Khariya Mithapur, Tehsil Bilara, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, P.w.d
Department, Jaipur.
2. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer),
P.w.d., Jodhpur Section.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), S.d.o
Bilara, Bar-Bilara, Jodhpur Section.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Bar-Bilara-
Jodhpur Section) Project Implement Unit, N.h.a.i., Project
Implementation Unit, Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur.
(2 of 4) [CW-16476/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12980/2019
1. Dhagla Ram S/o Shri Khinya Ram, Aged About 55 Years.
2. Jetha Ram S/o Late Natha Ram, Aged About 50 Years.
3. Raju Ram S/o Late Natha Ram, Aged About 46 Years.
4. Meema Devi W/o Natha Ram, Aged About 65 Years.
All are B/c Sirvi, R/o Village Khariya Mithapur, Tehsil
Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, P.w.d.
Department, Jaipur.
2. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer),
P.w.d., Jodhpur Section.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), S.d.o.
Bilara, Bar-Bilara-Jodhpur Section.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Bar-Bilara-
Jodhpur Section) Project Implement Unit, N.h.a.i., Project
Implementation Unit, Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/03/2022
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present writ
petitions are heard finally and decided by this common order.
The present writ petitions have been filed seeking the
following the relief:-
"A. The respondents may kindly be directed to
comply with the circular of Department of Land
Resources, Ministry of Rural Development's dated
26.10.2015 and redetermine the award of the
petitioner while taking into consideration the
(3 of 4) [CW-16476/2019]
reference date for calculation of market value as per
the above circular and may re-determine the award
of the petitioner while considering the DLC rate
prevalent on 1.1.2014.
B. The respondents may be directed to apply the
multiplier factor of two instead of 1.25 since, the
acquisition is by Central Government.
C. The respondents may be directed to comply
with the guidelines given by the Department of Land
Resources, Ministry of Rural Development following
the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders and as per the
clarification given by this circular; ".
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petitions is covered by the
judgment of this court dated 21.02.2022 passed in a batch of writ
petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3644/2019
(Chandra Devi V/s Union of India & Ors.) alongwith other
connected matters.
Learned counsel for the petitioners without going into the
merits of the present matters made a solitary submission that in
view of the judgment passed by this court in the case of 'Chandra
Devi' (supra), the DLC rate prevailing on 01.01.2014 should be
applied in the case of the present petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents is in agreement that the
DLC rate prevalent on 01.01.2014 has been taken into
consideration while determining the award in the present case, but
the same is disputed by the counsel for the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that he will make a
representation to the Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works
Department in the light of judgment passed by this court in the
case of Chandra Devi (supra) for considering and applying the DLC
rate prevalent on 01.01.2014, in the case of present petitioners.
In the circumstances, the present writ petitions are disposed
of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer that in the event
(4 of 4) [CW-16476/2019]
of filing a representation by the petitioners, the same shall be
considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by this
court in the case of 'Chandra Devi'. It is made clear that the DLC
rate of the land in question which was prevalent on 01.01.2014
should be taken into consideration while calculating the award in
the case of the petitioners.
The stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
75-77Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
