Jai Ram @ Jaya Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6493 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 694/2023

Jai Ram @ Jaya Ram S/o Kripa Ram, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Village Genva (Chokha), Harala Bhakhari Bypass Road Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Government Of Rajasthan. Jaipur.

2. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through Its Secretary.

3. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Rajeevayan 188, Umed Heritage Ratanada, Jodhpur.

4. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transportation And National Highway, New Delhi.

5. Sub Division Officer (North) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Ankur Mathur with Mr.
                                   Harshwardhan Thanvi.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
                                    Judgment
29/08/2023

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.8528/2023,

whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 &

5 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has been

allowed and the interim order dated 28.06.2023 granted in the

writ petition was vacated.

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-694/2023]

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner, inter-

alia, seeking to question the amended award No.70 dated

24.05.2023 (Annex.21), notice dated 25.05.2023 (Annex.22) and

sought quashing of supplementary award No.411 dated

30.12.2019 (Annex.9) issued by the Land Acquisition Officer for

the structure and building situated over the land of Khasara

Nos.867/3 & 867/4 of Village Gewa and sought further

consequential reliefs.

3. It appears that initially an ex-parte interim order was

granted on 28.06.2023, whereby the respondents were restrained

from construction of the road over Khasara Nos. 867/3 & 867/4.

4. The respondent Nos. 3 & 5 filed application under Article

226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim

order.

5. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, referring to

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.G. Projects Limited v.

M/s Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. : (2022) 6 SCC 127 found that the

cause of action in the petition pertained to amended award dated

24.05.2023, whereby the compensation was reduced and that the

determination of the said aspect in the writ petition will only have

financial consequence, which does not require stopping of the

construction of a public project, that is a ring road to the town and

consequently allowed the application and vacated the interim

order.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner made vehement

submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in

vacating the interim order on the assumption that the petition

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-694/2023]

pertained to reduction in quantum of compensation only. It was

submitted that the appellant-petitioner had also questioned the

supplementary award No.411 dated 30.12.2019 (Annex.9) on the

basis that the land in question was never acquired by the

respondents, which belongs to the appellant - petitioner and

therefore, they have no right to construct the road on the said

disputed khasaras, the order impugned by the learned Single

Judge has been passed ignoring the said specific plea raised by

the appellant-petitioner and therefore, the order impugned

deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

7. Elaborate submissions were made seeking to establish the

ownership of the appellant-petitioner over the disputed land, lack

of any notification for its acquisition and that the said land is being

used for construction of road without any legal authority.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 & 5 i.e.

National Highways Authority of India ('NHAI') and Land Acquisition

Officer made submissions that the appellant-petitioner is not

entitled to raise the issues as sought to be raised now before the

Division Bench, inasmuch as, the plea raised by the appellant-

petitioner in this regard came to be rejected by the learned Single

Judge in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner being

SBCWP No.3995/2020, decided on 12.04.2023, against which

DBSAW No.367/2023 was filed, which was withdrawn with liberty

to approach the learned Single Judge by way of a review petition

and the said review petition being S.B. Civil Writ Review

No.36/2023 is still pending consideration before the learned Single

Judge.

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-694/2023]

9. It was further submitted that the trigger for filing of the

present writ petition has only been the amended award No.70

dated 24.05.2023 (Annex.21) and merely because while

questioning the validity of the said amended award, the petitioner

chose to reiterate the challenge laid in SBCWP No.3995/2020,

cannot be a basis to get it re-examined once the earlier petition

came to be dismissed.

10. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified

in vacating the interim order as the issue, which could be raised in

the writ petition now is the reduction of quantum of award and

there cannot be any irreparable injury to the petitioner and the

balance of convenience was very much in favour of construction of

the ring road as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of N.G. Project Limited (supra). It was prayed that the appeal

be dismissed.

11. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

12. It is no doubt true that the petitioner in the writ petition has

laid foundation seeking to question the very action of the

respondents in constructing the road purportedly over Khasara

Nos.867/3 & 867/4 and went on to question the amended award

No.70 dated 24.05.2023 (Annex.21).

13. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed

SBCWP No.3995/2020, wherein the following reliefs were

sought :-

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-694/2023]

"i. The impugned notice dated 4.2.2020 (annexure 9) and entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents for acquisition of the land of the humble petitioner situated in khasra no.867/3 and 867/4 at village genva chokha may kindly ordered to be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be restrained from acquiring the land of the humble petitioner for the purpose of construction of ring road.

ii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in the favour of petitioner."

14. It may be noticed that the challenge laid to notice dated

04.02.2020 in SBCWP No.3995/2020 was as a consequence to

the supplementary award No.411 dated 30.12.2019 (Annex.9),

which has been challenged in the present writ petition. It would be

seen that in earlier writ petition, the relief claimed pertained to

quashing of the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents

qua the land comprised in Khasara Nos.867/3 & 867/4. The said

SBCWP No.3995/2020 came to be dismissed by the learned Single

Judge, inter-alia, with the following observations:-

"This Court further observes in writ petition no.3995/2020, the lands in question were recorded in favour of the Forest Department and the Revenue Department, and that, the petitioner therein is an encroacher on the said land, which was subsequently, vested in the respondent-NHAI for the development works in question. The documents relied by the respondents clearly substantiate the impugned action of the respondents. The whole purpose, being such enactment, was the best public infrastructure and provision of best National Highways in the country. Therefore, in the firm opinion of this Court, the project in question, which is for the benefit of public at large, ought not be stopped."

15. The determination made above was very specific holding that

the lands in question were recorded in favour of the Forest

Department and Revenue Department and the appellant-petitioner

is an encroacher on the said land, which subsequently vested in

the NHAI for development work in question and that the

documents relied on by the respondents substantiate the action of

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-694/2023]

the respondents. As such, the claim made by the appellant-

petitioner stood specifically negated by the learned Single Judge in

SBCWP No.3995/2020.

16. Against the order passed in SBCWP No.3995/2020, DBSAW

No.367/2023 was filed, which came to be withdrawn on

21.04.2023 with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge by

way of a review petition and now it is submitted that the Writ

Review No.36/2023 filed, is pending consideration before the

learned Single Judge.

17. The said aspects i.e. filing of the previous petition and its

disposal were noticed by the learned Single Judge in the order

impugned and apparently as the issue raised pertaining to the

supplementary award dated 30.12.2019 (Annex.9) had already

been determined, qua the fresh issue raised pertaining to the

amended award dated 24.05.2023 (Annex.21), the learned Single

Judge came to the conclusion that the same would only have

financial consequence and for the said purpose the stay of the

project, was unnecessary.

18. The said determination made does not call for any

interference in the present appeal as the facts, as noticed, are

clear wherein in the previous petition challenge was laid to the

consequential order to the supplementary award dated

30.12.2019 (Annex.9) and the pleas raised came to be negated

and the challenge now is pending consideration in a review

petition before the learned Single Judge. Till such time that the

order is reviewed, the determination as made by the learned

Single Judge in SBCWP No.3995/2020 stands.

[2023:RJ-JD:27887-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-694/2023]

19. Further merely because on account of a fresh trigger / cause

of action on account of the amended award dated 24.05.2023

(Annex.21), a fresh petition has been filed, wherein the challenge

as laid in SBCWP No.3995/2020 has been reiterated and instead

of the notice dated 04.02.2020, the award dated 30.12.2019 has

been challenged, the same could not have been considered /

reconsidered by ignoring the previous determination made in

SBCWP No.3995/2020.

20. Further, in case the claim made is that the challenge laid to

the supplementary award dated 30.12.2019 is a fresh challenge,

the same is highly belated besides the fact that in SBCWP

No.3995/2020 itself the challenge, if any, should have been laid as

multiple petitions for the same cause of action, cannot be

maintained.

21. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the

learned Single Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion

that as in the writ petition, the issue pertained to reduction / for

maintaining the compensation awarded, which would only have a

financial consequence, there was no necessity to stop the

construction of a public project, cannot be faulted.

22. Consequently, there is no substance in the present appeal,

the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 77-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)