Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Ram @ Jaya Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:26131-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 266/2023.
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 601/2019.
Jai Ram @ Jaya Ram S/o Shri Kirpa Ram, aged about 75 years,
resident of Village Genva (Chokha) Harala Bhakri, Bye-Pass Road
Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through District Collector, Jodhpur.
2. The Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur through its
Secretary.
3. The Authorized Officer, Tehsildar (West) Jodhpur
Development Authority in front of Railway Hospital
Ratanada, Jodhpur.
4. The National Highway Authority of India through Project
Director Project Implementation Unit Rajeevayan, 188,
Ummed Heritage Ratanada, Jodhpur.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department
Circle Jodhpur, Jodhpur.
6. Dy. Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Jodhpur.
7. Achala Ram S/o Shri Gobar Ram, aged about 55 years,
resident of in front of Chokha Panchayat Bhawan, Navoda
Bera Village Genva (Chokha), Jodhpur. (Since he expired
during the pendency of the Writ Petition, hence, he is
arrayed as Performa respondent through his LRs -
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:33:14 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:26131-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-266/2023]
8. Hukum Ram S/o Achala Ram, R/o in front of SBI Bank,
Chokha, Jodhpur.
9. Mukesh S/o Achala Ram, R/o in front of SBI Bank,
Chokha, Jodhpur.
10. Chanda Devi W/o Achala Ram, R/o in front of SBI Bank,
Chokha, Jodhpur.
11. Smt. Jasoda W/o Hema Ram D/o Achala Ram, R/o
Nayapura, Chokha, Jodhpur.
12. Smt. Premeshawari W/o Hemant Singh D/o Achala Ram,
R/o Gehloto Ka Bas, Gulasani, Jodhpur.
13. Leela W/o Himansu D/o Achala Ram, R/o Chainpura
Bawdi, Gokul Ji Ki Piyau, Mandore, Jodhpur.
14. Shyam Lal S/o Shri Gobar Ram, aged about 61 years, R/o
in front of Chokha Panchayat Bhawan, Navoda Bera
Village Genva (Chokha), Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kotwani.
Mr. Digvijay Singh Sodha.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG.
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore.
Mr. D.S. Rajvi.
Mr. Rajat Dave
Mr. Ankur Mathur.
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi.
Mr. Vikas Joshi.
Ms. Shreshtha Mathur.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:33:14 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:26131-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-266/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
JUDGMENT
18/08/2023
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2023
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2019, whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking to question the action of
the respondents in issuing the notice dated 15.10.2018 (Annex.6
to the writ petition) as well as the subsequent proceedings and
seeking restrain against the respondents from disturbing the
possession of the petitioners over the land in question.
3. The petition was founded on several grounds including the
fact that the petitioners were sought to be dispossessed, without
undertaking acquisition proceedings and without paying any
compensation.
4. It appears from the record of the writ petition that
appearance was made on behalf of the National Highways
Authority of India and Jodhpur Development Authority and
response were filed on behalf of the NHAI and respondents No. 2
and 3 i.e. Jodhpur Development Authority.
5. After hearing the parties, in the impugned order, the learned
Single Judge noticed the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners and thereafter, the response given by the respondents
indicating that the issue was covered by the order passed in Paras
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2021,
decided on 17.10.2022), which order was then quoted and the
writ petition was dismissed.
[2023:RJ-JD:26131-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-266/2023]
6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that
though the contentions as raised were noticed, the same were not
dealt with and though it was noticed that the issue raised was
covered by judgment in the case of Paras Ram (supra), even the
relief granted in the case of Paras Ram (supra) was not granted to
the petitioners.
7. Submissions have been made that in the case of Paras Ram
(supra), it was directed that if the land of the petitioners therein
was required, the same would be taken after recourse to the
provisions of law and compensation should be paid if the
authorities are satisfied that the petitioners are the rightful owners
of the land in question. However, the petition filed by the
petitioners has been dismissed whole-hog, which is not justified.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made
submissions that the detailed response was filed by NHAI and JDA
disputing the contentions raised by the petitioners, however,
though it was noticed that the land in question was necessary for
espousing the larger public interest and the acquisition was rightly
done, while observing that the controversy was covered by the
judgment in the case of Paras Ram (supra), the matter was
decided.
9. Submissions have been made that the issue as raised by the
petitioners may be decided on merits as the petitioners have no
case.
10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the record of the writ
petition as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
though it is apparent that few of the respondents had contested
[2023:RJ-JD:26131-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-266/2023]
the writ petition, it appears that when the submissions were made
that the issue as raised by the petitioners is covered by the
judgment in the case of Paras Ram (supra), the matter was
decided based on the said judgment, however instead of granting
the relief as granted in the case of Paras Ram (supra), the petition
came to be dismissed. The grievance raised by the appellant
appears to be justified.
11. Though submissions have been made by learned counsel for
the respondents seeking to contest the writ petition on merits, as
we would like to have the benefit of view of the learned Single
Judge, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and remand back the matter for decision
afresh.
12. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The order dated
14.02.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2019 is set
aside. The matter is remanded back for re-hearing. The
respondents present are directed to appear and they would be
free to file response to the writ petition and after hearing the
parties, the matter be re-decided.
13. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, the
writ petition may now be listed before the learned Single Judge on
04.09.2023.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
69-/-Mohan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
