Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heeriya And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 20 October, 2023
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:36240]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 574/2018
1. Heeriya S/o Naathiya, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali
Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali.
2. Jadawali D/o Poonama, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali
Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Sub Divisional Officer Land Acquisiiton Officer, Rohet,
District Pali, Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd.,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mudit Nagpal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
20/10/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment passed by this Court in a bunch of writ
petitions led by Smt. Himadri Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15785/2017 decided on
19.07.2018), the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
[2023:RJ-JD:36240] (2 of 3) [CW-574/2018]
The basic bone of contention between the parties to the
litigation is regarding interpretation of the notification dated
16.10.2014 which has been reproduced hereinabove. The
notification was issued for applying graded multiple factor on
the market value of the lands to be acquired. Upon a plain and
simple reading of the notification, it is apparent that the State
Government took a conscious decision that multiplier applicable
would have to be assessed in reference to the distance of the
land under acquisition from "the nearest urban area". Had it
been the intention of the rule making authority even for a
moment to apply the multiplier in reference to the distance from
the headquarter of the district concerned, such connotation
would have been mentioned in the notification itself. The
explanation below the notification makes the issue crystal clear
while providing that for the three cities having Development
Authorities i.e. Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, the urban limits shall
be considered to be the entire area where the jurisdiction of the
development authority extends whereas for the others, it shall
be construed to be the local limit of the Municipality concerned.
Manifestly, there is logic and rational behind the purport of this
notification. It is expected that with inclusion of the rural areas
within the territorial limits of the development authority (which
extend to well beyond the municipal limits of the city), urban
development would reach such areas more rapidly as compared
to the rural areas adjoining the smaller Municipal towns.
Simultaneously, the adjoining areas even if in another district
would be directly benefitted by such development. It has been
clearly provided in the notification dated 16.10.2014 that the
multiplier shall be graded from 1.25 to 1.75 according to the
distance of the land from the "nearest urban area". Admittedly,
as per the geographical domains, the lands of Rohat and Nimbli
Brahmanan (though falling in the Pali District), are closure in
proximity to the limits of Jodhpur Development Authority (the
nearest urban area) and thus, expectedly, DLC rates of these
areas would be higher as compared to other rural areas in the
Pali District. As such and in view of the unambiguous language
of the notification (Annexure-3) dated 16.10.2014 governing
the multiple factor to be applied for evaluating market value of
the lands (which in the cases of the petitioners lands could be
the JDA), this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents
were perfectly justified in applying the multiplier 1.25 market
value of the lands for determining the compensation payable to
[2023:RJ-JD:36240] (3 of 3) [CW-574/2018]
the petitioners pursuant to acquisition of their lands in the two
revenue villages mentioned above.
Finding no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the
impugned action, I am not inclined to exercise this Court's
extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to interfere therein.
Hence, these writ petitions as well as stay applications
are dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
2. In light of the aforequoted order i.e. Smt. Himadri Jain Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), the instant writ petition is
dismissed in the same terms. Stay application as well as all other
pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/52-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
