Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Anita Singhal (2025:Rj-Jd:3783-Db) on 21 January, 2025
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Madan Gopal Vyas
[2025:RJ-JD:3783-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 611/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer - Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil
And District Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Anita Singhal W/o Shri Rajendra Singhal, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Gandhiyon Ki Gali, City Police, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. 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.
3. The Regional Manager RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Bhootra for
Mr. Shridhar Mehta
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
21/01/2025
1. The counsel for the State submits that the controversy
involved in the present case is no more res integra. He refers to
the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.173/2019, The Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Jawari Lal
Jain & Ors., decided on 6th July 2020.
[2025:RJ-JD:3783-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-611/2019]
2. The counsel for the appellant further submits that it is the
land acquisition for the same chunk of land in the present matter
and it was the bunch of writ petition in which the issue was
considered.
3. The counsel for respondent No.2 does not refute the
aforesaid submissions.
4. In The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court held as under :-
"13. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority's case
(supra) that:(i) The proviso is part of Section 24(2) and
cannot be read as part of Section 24(1)(b); (ii) The
window period of five years is provided to complete the
acquisition proceedings, where the award has been
passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the
provisions of the Act of 1894 shall be applied as if it has
not been repealed; and iii) In case where the award is
passed during the window period of five years in terms of
Section 24(1)(b), the compensation is to be paid under
the Act of 1894 and not under the Act of 2013, the only
contention raised by the writ petitioners as aforesaid falls
through and therefore, the order under appeal passed by
the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
14. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for
the respondents that even under the Scheme of Act of
1894, as soon as the award is passed, the Collector must
be armed with the amount of compensation payable to
the person interested, suffice it to say that no such case
was ever set out by the writ petitioners in the writ
petition filed or the present appeals and therefore, the
question of consideration of the abstract contention
sought to be raised by the writ petitioners at this stage,
without any foundation of fact, cannot be entertained by
this Court. Moreover, under Section 31 of the Act of
1894, on making the award under Section 11, the
Collector shall tender payment of compensation awarded
by him to the persons interested entitled thereto
according to award and shall pay it to them unless
prevented by some one or more of the contingency
mentioned in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 31.
From the provisions of Section 31, in no manner
it could be inferred that if the award amount is deposited
with some delay, it will vitiate the acquisition
proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the writ
petitioners have already accepted the amount of
compensation with interest and therefore, at this stage,
even otherwise, they are precluded from raising any
issue regarding the legality of land acquisition
proceedings on the ground of alleged violation of the
provisions of the Act of 1894."
[2025:RJ-JD:3783-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-611/2019]
5. In the light of limited submissions made and as no one is
there for refuting on behalf of the private party, the present
appeal is allowed in the light of the judgment already rendered.
6. The order under appeal dated 14th May 2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court is accordingly set aside.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
26-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
