Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar And Ors vs State And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:41247) on 8 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:41247]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5100/2007
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal, aged about 54
years, resident of 25, Neemuch Mata Scheme, Devali, Udaipur.
2. Man Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, aged about 74 years,
resident of 8, Kharol Colony, Udaipur.
3. Narendra Kumar Dodeja S/o Shri Meghraj Ji, aged about 44
years, resident of 86, Shakti Nagar, Udaipur.
4. Durga Das S/o Shri Tulsi Das Ji, aged bout 54 years, resident
of Opposite Pili Kothi, Fatehpura, Udaipur.
5. Kamlesh Kuma Jain, S/o Shri Banshiu Lal Ji, aged about 46
years, resident of 14/15, Dholi Bawadi, Basant Bhawan, Udaipur.
6. Lrs of late Narotam Sen, S/o Shri Trilok Chand Ji:-
6/1 Godavari Devi W/o late Narotam Sen, S/o Shri Trilok
Chand Ji, aged about 79 years.
6/2 Ashok Kumar Sen S/o late Narotam Sen, S/o Shri Trilok
Chand Ji, aged about 54 years.
6/3 Shambhu Sen S/o late Narotam Sen, S/o Shri Trilok
Chand Ji, aged about 52 years.
(All resident of near Astha Center, Shukhdevi Nagar Bedla,
Udaipur, Raj.).
7. Lrs of late Nawal Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh Ji:-
7/1 Parvat Singh S/o late Nawal Singh, aged about 52
years, resident of Vidhya Bhawan, Behidn B.Ed. College,
Near Tak Building, Devali, Udaipur.
8. Lrs of Nathu Lal, S/o Shri Amba Lal Ji:-
8/1 Dheeraj Salvi S/o Nathu Lal S/o Shri Amba Lal Ji,
aged about 35 years, resident of behind Panchayat Samiti,
Badgaon, Udaipur.
9. Ram Chandra S/o Shohan Lal Sahu, aged about 42 years,
resident of 7, Panchwati, Udaipur.
10. Kailash Joshi, S/o Shri Roop Lal Ji, aged about 46 years,
resident of Tengitreet, opposite Galaxy Apartment, Bedala Road,
Fatehpura, Udaipur.
11. Prabhulal Chitlera, S/o Shri Sohan Lal Ji, aged about 54
years resident of Opposite Mewar Anchaik Bank, Bhuwana,
Bhawan, Udaipur.
12. Sohan Lal Suwalka, S/o Shri Vardichand Ji, aged about 64
years, resident of Near Patel Circle, Kishan Pole, Udaipur.
13. Lrs of late Jai Singh, S/o Shri Hemraj Ji:-
13/1 Vishal Vasita S/o Dhanraj Vasita, aged about 28 years
[2024:RJ-JD:41247] (2 of 6) [CW-5100/2007]
resident of Near Sukhdevi Mata Mandir, Chota Bedla via
Badgaon, Udaipur.
14. Surjit Singh S/o Shri Harnam Singh Ji, aged about 51 years,
resident of 56, Sikh Colony, Udaipur.
15. Chunni Lal Sharma S/o Shri Laluram Ji, aged about 59 years,
resident of Gali No.1, village Pulan Udaipur.
16. Mohan Lal Purabiya S/o Shri Tarachand Ji, aged about 50
years, resident of 99, Pyar Niwas Pulan, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Urban
Development Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur.
3. The Special Officer. Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Urban
Improvement Trust, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Shisodia, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Gaurav Shrimali
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/10/2024
I.A.Nos. 01/2024, 02/2024, 03/2024 and 04/2024:-
1. For the reason stated, all these applications seeking
impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased petitioners,
are allowed.
2. The amended cause title is taken on record.
I.A.No.05/2024:-
1. The respondents - Urban Development Authority, Udaipur
(hereinafter referred to as 'UDA') has moved the present
[2024:RJ-JD:41247] (3 of 6) [CW-5100/2007]
application seeking dismissal of the writ petition in light of the
consent given by the landlord/owner of the shops in question,
namely, Shabhir Hussain, who has stated that he has no objection
if the possession of the subject land which has been acquired by
Acquisition Case No.168/2001 is taken.
2. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the UDA submitted
that the petitioners before this Court are occupants/tenant, who
are running their shops constructed on the subject land which has
been acquired after following due process.
3. He further submitted that land acquisition proceeding had
taken place way back in the year 2001 and submitted that in view
of the consent given by the land owner - Shabhir Hussain, the
interim order dated 11.10.2007 be vacated and the respondents
be allowed to take possession of the land which is required for the
purpose of widening of otherwise busy and relatively narrow road
of Udaipur.
4. Mr. Manish Shisodia, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the land acquisition proceeding in
question are malafide exercise of powers and the same has been
done at the behest of land owners, who want to get rid of the
tenancy, perhaps because the rent he was receiving from these
shops did not satisfy his greed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that land which has been
acquired in the name of widening of the road is not for public
welfare. For this purpose, he placed for perusal of the Court a
photograph showing that the road width is sufficient if the
vehicular traffic is taken into account.
[2024:RJ-JD:41247] (4 of 6) [CW-5100/2007]
6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that since the amount of
compensation has not been paid to the landlord, the proceedings
have lapsed in terms of provisions of section 24 of the The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. Inviting Court's attention towards the award dated
12.02.2007, learned counsel submitted that in spite of the fact
that the petitioners had lodged their objections/claims,
compensation has been denied to them and same has been
ordered to be paid to the land owner to the detriment of their
rights.
8. Relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Krishan Lal Arneja & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2004 SC 3582, learned Senior Counsel submitted
that despite being tenant, the petitioners have locus to challenge
the land acquisition proceedings.
9. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the UDA submitted
that the tenant at the best can claim interest or part of the
compensation in light of the judgment which the petitioners have
relied upon.
10. He submitted that by no stretch of imagination the tenant
can challenge the land acquisition proceeding per-se, more
particularly, when the land has been acquired for the public
purpose of widening the road.
11. He submitted that the interim order was passed in
petitioners' favour on 11.10.2007 following interim order passed in
a purportedly similar writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.5856/2007) and since the said writ petition has been disposed
[2024:RJ-JD:41247] (5 of 6) [CW-5100/2007]
of as having become infructuous, no indulgence be granted in the
present writ petition, more particularly, when the owner of the
land/shops himself has given no objection.
12. Learned counsel argued that on account of the interim order
passed in the present case, the process of widening of the road
which is considerably a busy road in the city of Udaipur has been
stalled and therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
14. Indisputably, the petitioners are tenant in the shops
constructed over the land which has been acquired by the
respondents and an award dated 12.02.2007 has already been
passed and the acquisition proceeding have culminated.
15. Maybe, the amount of compensation that has been
determined has not been taken by the land owner, but such fact
per-se cannot lead to lapsing of the land acquisition proceeding,
more particularly at the instance of the tenant.
16. The land owner in whose favour the award has been passed
may or may not withdraw the amount of compensation, but unless
the land owner comes before the Court and contend that on
account of non-payment of compensation, the proceeding have
lapsed, the High Court would not declare the proceeding to have
lapsed at the instance of third party (tenant).
17. This Court is therefore, of the clear view that the acquisition
proceeding have not lapsed as claimed by the petitioners because
final award has been passed and amount has been determined.
The possession of the land could not be taken because of the
interim order (dated 11.10.2007) which has been passed by this
[2024:RJ-JD:41247] (6 of 6) [CW-5100/2007]
Court. Hence, it cannot be said that possession of the land has not
been taken. But for the interim order, the respondents would have
taken possession of the land.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court feels that there is no
substance and merit in petitioners' contentions. The writ petition
is, therefore, dismissed.
19. The interim order dated 11.10.2007 passed by this Court is
henceforth vacated.
20. Needless to observe that petitioners shall be free to take
appropriate proceeding in relation to amount of compensation in
terms of section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In case, the
proceeding are so taken within a period of one month from today,
the competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with
law and not on the ground of delay as the petitioners have been
persuading their cause by way of instant writ petition.
21. All the interlocutory applications, including stay application
stand disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
497-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
