Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Prabhu Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:38268]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/2025
1. Shri Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Nanji, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
2. Shri Naran S/o Shri Nanji, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
3. Shri Bhadur S/o Shri Nanji, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
4. Shri Madan S/o Shri Nanji, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
5. Shri Suraj S/o Shri Shamhuda, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
6. Shri Kunwar S/o Shri Shambhuda, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
7. Lrs Of Lt. Shri Malia S/o Bhogji, Through -
7.1 Smt. Deetudi W/o Shri Malia, Aged About 76 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
7.2 Shri Mangilal S/o Shri Malia, R/o Kachala Khali Tehsil And
District Banswara Rajasthan.
7.3 Shri Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Malia, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
7.4 Shri Pratap S/o Shri Malia, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
8. Lrs Of Lt. Shri Daliya S/o Shri Punjia, Through -
8.1 Shri Gautam S/o Shri Daliya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
9 Shri Rangji S/o Shri Punjia, Aged About 72 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
10. Shri Rakma S/o Shri Punjia, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
11. Shri Devilal S/o Shri Jeevna, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
12. Shri Harish S/o Shri Jeevna, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
13. Shri Kalu S/o Shri Jeevna, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
14. Lrs Of Lt. Shri Mahesh S/o Jeevna, Through -
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:44:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38268] (2 of 5) [CW-7544/2025]
14.1 Smt. Kachri W/o Lt. Shri Mahesh, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
14.2 Shri Sanjay S/o Lt. Shri Mahesh, Aged About 35 Years, R/
o Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
15. Lrs Of Lt. Shri Galiya S/o Shri Hamira, Through
15.1 Shri Pawan S/o Lt. Shri Galiya, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
15.2 Shri Mahesh S/o Lt. Shri Galiya, Aged About 23 Years, R/
o Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
15.3 Jeevani D/o Lt. Shri Galiya, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
16. Shri Doliya S/o Shri Hamira, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
17. Shri Myla S/o Shri Hamira, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
18. Shri Chagan S/o Shri Jalma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
19. Lrs Of Shri Magan S/o Jalma, Through
19.1 Smt. Itri W/o Shri Magan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
19.2 Shri Keshu S/o Shri Magan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
19.3 Shri Baksu S/o Shri Magan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
19.4 Shri Arjun S/o Shri Magan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
19.5 Shri Rajmal S/o Shri Magan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
19.6 Shri Bheem Singh S/o Shri Magan, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Kachala Khali Tehsil And District Banswara Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Jaipur Of Rajasthan.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer),
Tehsil And District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:44:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38268] (3 of 5) [CW-7544/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemank Vaishnav
Ms. Dolly Jaiswal
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
27/08/2025
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Court,
Banswara whereby the reference application preferred by the
petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
dated 08.11.2024 has been erroneously passed by the learned
civil Court, Banswara for the simple reason that the award in case
of petitioner has been passed under the Act of 1894 and,
therefore, as per Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the reference
application has rightly been filed by the petitioner before the
learned civil Court, Banswara and it is the appropriate forum
where such application is maintainable.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned civil
Court has wrongly applied Section 63 of Land Acquisition and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
2013') while dealing with the application of the petitioner. He
submitted that the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 2013 are
not applicable in the present case as the acquisition proceedings
have been undertaken and concluded invoking the provisions of
[2025:RJ-JD:38268] (4 of 5) [CW-7544/2025]
the Act of 1894. He, therefore, prays that the order dated
08.11.2024 may be quashed and set aside and the learned civil
Court may be directed to decide the reference application
preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon a judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by this Court
in the case of "Shri Jagdish Chandra Tehli vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors." passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.15921/2024.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record of the case as well as gone through the judgment passed
by this Court in Shri Jagdish Chandra Teli (supra).
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court finds that the land acquisition proceedings were
initiated by the respondent No.2 way back in the year 2010 and
the final award was also passed in the year 2010. The reference
application was also filed in the year 2011 and, therefore, the
proceedings were required to be undertaken as per the provisions
of the Act of 1894.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the present case
the learned civil Court, Banswara has wrongly applied the
provisions of the Act of 2013. The reference application filed by
the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was required to
be decided by the learned civil Court only as the civil Court is the
only Court where the jurisdiction lies and therefore, the reference
application has rightly been filed by the petitioner before the
learned Court below.
[2025:RJ-JD:38268] (5 of 5) [CW-7544/2025]
8. In the opinion of this Court, the provisions of the Act of 2013
has wrongly been invoked by the learned Court below. The order
dated 08.11.2024 is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
9. In view of aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned civil Court,
Banswara is quashed and set aside and the civil Court, Banswara
is directed to decide the reference application preferred by the
petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 afresh in
accordance with law.
10. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
388-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
