Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Phoolchand And Anr vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:37368-Db) on 20 August, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 254/1998

1. Lrs. of Late Shri Phool Chand
1/1. Smt. Raju Devi.
1/2. Suresh Kumar
1/3 Hemant Kumar
1/4. Naveen Kumar
1/5 Lokesh Kumar.
2. Mangi Bai W/o Sunder Lal Ji Mahajan.
2/1. Shri sunder Lal Seth, Aged 60 years (Husband) (Deleted).
2/2 Jay Kumar Seth S/o Surendra Lal Seth, Age 36 years.
2/3. Ajay Kumar Seth S/o Surendra Lal Seth, Age 28 years.
All R/o Near Bus Stand, Dhariwad, Zila Pratapgarh.
2/4 Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Dinesh Kumar, D/o Surendra Lal Seth,
Age 40 years.
2/5 Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Babu Lal, D/o Surendra Lal Seth, Age
38 years.
(Both R/o Parsola, Pratapgarh).
2/6. Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Praveen Kumar Ji, age 31 years, R/o
Narwali, Banswara.
2/7. Smt. Chetna Devi W/o Jayprakash, age 30 years, R/o
Salumbar, District Udaipur.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Dy. Secretary Krishi (Group - 2B)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.) Vallabh Nagar, District
Udaipur.
3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
                                   assisted by Mr. Anirudh Khatri
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG
                                   Mr. Mohit Sharma for
                                   Mr. VD Dadhich
                                   Mr. Pawan Bharti




                        (Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB]                   (2 of 6)                    [SAW-254/1998]




        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

20/08/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

06.11.1997, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants-

petitioners was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted

that there is total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of

Section 4 and 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (hereinafter

referred as 'the Act of 1994'). He submits that though the

grounds were raised in the writ petition for non-compliance of the

provisions of Section 4 and 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1994, but the same have not been taken note of by the learned

Single Judge while deciding the writ petition and thus committed

an error while passing the order dated 06.11.1997. He submits

that during the pendency of this appeal, the award had been

passed, however, the possession of the land still continues to be

held by the appellants.

4. Learned counsel further submits that since there is non-

compliance of the mandatory provisions of Act of 1994 and the

possession is still being vested with the appellants, therefore, the

land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent - State

are dehors the law and thus, the same may be quashed and set

aside. He, therefore, prays that the judgment under appeal may

be quashed and set aside and the appeal as well as writ petition

filed by the appellants-petitioners may be allowed.

[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - State

submits that while the matter was argued before the learned

Single Judge, the grounds raised in the writ petition were not

pressed, therefore, the same have not been considered while

passing the order dated 06.11.1997. He submits that in these

circumstances, the remedy available to the appellants was only of

filing review petition before the learned Single Judge. Learned

counsel submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the

award of the land in question has been passed and the State has

deposited the entire amount before the Competent Authority.

6. Learned counsel further submits that after passing the award

and deposition of the amount awarded, the possession of the land

has also been taken over. He submits that Moka report dated

01.04.2000 of Tehsildar and the documents placed on record goes

to show that the land stands mutated in the name of Krishi Mandi.

He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam

Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gillapukri Tea

Company Ltd. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 388 has held that once

the award has been passed and the possession of the land has

been handed over to the Government, the land acquisition

proceedings could not have been reopened. He, therefore, submits

that the present appeal may be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

have gone through the relevant record of the case.

8. In the order dated 06.11.1997, the learned Single Judge has

taken note of the sole argument raised before it that a prayer has

been made for quashing the declaration under Section 6 on the

ground that it has been published after a lapse of one year.

[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]

Further, learned Single Bench has noted that the last publication of

Section 4 Notification was done on 02.08.1989 and thereafter the

Notification under Section 17(A) readwith Section 6 was issued on

25.01.1990 and was ultimately published in the Gazette on

26.07.1990, therefore, the publication of Section 6 Notification is

well within one year and therefore, the writ petition was

dismissed.

9. We note that the points raised in appeal, though were part of

pleadings in the writ petition, however, the same were not pressed

into service. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the same

at this stage, more particularly, when the award has already been

passed and possession of the land had been taken over by the

State Government. It is further noted that before the appeal was

filed against the order dated 06.11.1997, the possession of the

land in question was taken over and a Moka Report dated

01.04.2000 (under the Signatures of the Tehsildar and other

Officials) to that effect is placed on record. We further note that

after the award and taking over the possession of the land, the

land stands mutated in the name of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.

10. The fact that the possession was taken over is also

established from the interim order passed by this court on

07.04.2000, wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court has noted

the fact of the possession having been taken over.

11. In these circumstances, we are of the view that once the

award has been passed and the possession of the land in question

has already been taken over, therefore, we would not like to upset

all those proceedings at this stage in light of the observations

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case or Assam

[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]

Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(supra), wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

17. In the above scenario, the arguments of the first respondent are untenable. Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government. Contrary to the first respondent's contention, the question of lapsing under Section 24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the award was approved on 05.03.2010.

18. So far as the second set of acquisition proceedings are concerned, without addressing the factual veracity of the State Government's contention that the second award was meant to be only in respect of landowners not covered by the original award, we are of the opinion that it would not have been possible for the State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of already acquired land such as that of the first respondent herein. This position has been affirmed by this Court in D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 656 in the following terms:

"17. Even otherwise, if land already stands acquired by the Government and if the same stands vested in the Government there is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a second notification for the Government cannot acquire its own land. The same is by now settled by various decision of this Court in a catena of cases.

18. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 this Court has held that the Land Acquisition Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest belonging to the Government in the land on acquisition This position was reiterated in a subsequent decision of this Court in Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India, (2004) 7 SCC 362 in paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment, this Court has held that the High Court clearly erred in setting aside the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference since it is settled law that in land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest. While laying down the aforesaid law, this Court has referred to its earlier decision in Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, AIR 1955 SC 298: (1955) 1 SCR 1311"

[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]

The recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 has also affirmed that once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. We find no reason to deviate from this settled position of law and thus are unable to agree with the High Court's reliance on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and 06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondent's land which had already been acquired and has been under the possession of the appellant since 11.06.2010.

19. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.

12. In view of the discussion made above and taking into

consideration the fact that after the award having been passed,

the possession of the land has been taken over the by the

respondents and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Assam Industrial Development corporation Ltd.

(supra), we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

13. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal Writ fails, and the

same is dismissed.

(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 1-nitin/-