Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1179/2024
1. Raj Kumar S/o Late Bansi Lal Kothari, Aged About 51
Years, Resident Of Village- Sanwad, Tehsil- Mavli, District-
Udaipur.
2. Smt. Gyanu D/o Moti Lal Vijayvargiya W/o Raj Kumar,
Through Lrs.
2/1. Shivani Kothari D/o Late Smt. Gyanu, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village- Sanwad, Tehsil- Mavli, District-
Udaipur.
2/2. Mayank Kothari S/o Late Smt. Gyanu, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village- Sanwad, Tehsil- Mavli, District-
Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Udaipur.
2. The Municipal Board, Fatehnagar - Sanwad, Tehsil- Mavli,
District- Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Village- Sanwad,
Tehsil- Mavli, District- Udaipur.
4. The Deputy Director, Local Self Government, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kalpataru Tripathi
Mr. Mohd. Amaan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Joshi
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
21/05/2025
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the orders dated 06.11.2023
and 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (2 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
petition filed by the appellants-petitioners, only to the extent that
while allowing the writ petition with a direction to allot land, the
land, as demanded for allotment by the petitioners, has not been
granted. It is submitted that vide order dated 06.11.2023, the
learned Single Judge though recorded a finding that the
respondents had agreed to give petitioners Abadi land in exchange
of the land offered and surrendered by the petitioners, while
issuing direction for allotment of Abadi land in exchange of the
land offered by the petitioners, the land, as agreed to be allotted
in lieu of surrender of land by the appellants, was not specified.
The direction was to allot the petitioners Abadi land. It is
submitted that for the purpose of seeking appropriate modification
in the aforesaid order, the petitioners also moved an application,
but the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer with a finding
that surrender letter Annexure. 12 and 13 did not specify the land,
as claimed by the petitioners and, therefore, a direction for
allotment of specific land, as claimed by the petitioners, could not
be granted.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
appellants have been subjected to a most arbitrary and malafide
action on the part of the respondents. He would submit that the
appellants-petitioners were lured by the respondents that an
appropriate Abadi land, as desired by the appellants-petitioners, in
lieu of surrender of their land for public purpose, would be
allotted. Acting on this promise and clear understanding, the
appellants-petitioners proceeded to surrender their valuable land,
as public spirit citizens, to pave way for development of a
residential colony for Doctors on the petitioners' land, adjacent to
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (3 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
the hospital. However, after the land was surrendered, the
respondent authorities started acting in a very unusual, arbitrary
and malafide manner and kept on harassing the petitioners on one
or the other count, so much so that the petitioners had to
ultimately knock the doors of justice and their petition, which was
filed in the year 2010, came to be allowed by this Court holding
that the petitioners were entitled to allotment of land. He would
submit that the appellants-petitioners were entitled to the land
which was agreed to, in respect of which the respondents had
proceeded to allot but it was kept in abeyance without any basis.
Referring to various communications and documents filed on
record of the writ petition and appeal, he would submit that the
agreement between the parties was not only towards allotment of
land in lieu of the land surrendered by the petitioners but also for
an Abadi land in the same vicinity. He would submit that had such
an assurance not held out to the petitioners, the petitioners would
not have agreed for surrender. Therefore, the impugned order, to
the extent, it does not specify the land for allotment, the appeal
may be allowed, the order passed by the learned Single judge
may be modified.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not
warrant any interference. He would submit that as far as the
petitioners' entitlement to allotment of land in lieu of surrender of
their own land is concerned, the same is not being questioned by
the respondents and they have agreed to allot alternative piece of
land. However, the petitioners' claim for a particular land is not
based on any signed agreement between the parties and the
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (4 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
petitioners' claim that the respondents had agreed to allot a
particular piece of land, as desired by the petitioners, is not based
on any clinching evidence on record nor any documentary
evidence on record and the petitioners are raising a disputed
question of fact, as far as allotment of a particular piece of land is
concerned. He would further submit that the respondents have
already agreed to allot a particular piece of land, as earmarked in
the map attached along with the additional affidavit, which is
equally suitable land in the same vicinity where the land of the
appellants-petitioners was situated.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the records of the writ petition as well as the appeal.
6. Insofar as the petitioners' entitlement for allotment of
alternate piece of land in lieu of surrender of their land for public
purpose is concerned, the same is indisputable. The conduct of the
petitioners has been that of public spirited citizens, who, in order
to ensure speedy development of necessary infrastructure for the
residential colony of the Doctors on land adjacent to the hospital,
proceeded to surrender their land. It is also not in dispute that the
land of the petitioners was finally taken by way of surrender,
which has been developed, achieving the public purpose. But then
it is equally unfortunate and we express our anguish with regard
to the conduct of the respondents in harassing the petitioners. The
petitioners, as the record shows and is an undisputed position,
were having land in Abadi area. The petitioner's letter, addressed
to the Municipality (Annexure.A10) followed by another letter
(Annexure.A11), are admitted documents on record. The
surrender letter is also annexed along with the petition as
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (5 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
Annexure.12. The petitioners have also placed on record other
letters exchanged between the parties.
7. Letter dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure.8 & Annexure.9) was
sent to the petitioners stating therein that the land of the
petitioners is required for public purpose and if the petitioners are
willing to surrender their land in Khasra No.1036 area 10 Biswa
Kulia 3 Bigha and the land situated in Khasra No. 1037 area 18
Biswa Kulia 3 Bigha 8 Biswa, in exchange of the Abadi land or its
price, they may submit letter of consent before the competent
authority. A clear representation was made that if the petitioners
agree to surrender the land, they would be provided a land of
equal area as Abadi land or will be paid cost of the same. Acting
on this representation, the petitioners submitted their letter
(Annexure.10), in which, it was clearly stated that they would
agree to surrender the land, if they are allotted an Abadi land at
the location "Sanwad on the side of Fateh Nagar Road", so that
they may be duly compensated towards surrender of the land. The
contents of the letter sent by the petitioners, which is not under
dispute, clearly shows that the petitioners had agreed to surrender
their land on clear and specific condition of allotment of of a
specific Abadi land, described as "Sanwad Fatehnagar Road
Kinare".
8. It is not in dispute that after receipt of the appellants' letter
for surrender of their land in exchange of Abadi land in a specific
area, the respondents proceeded to take the possession of the
land of the petitioners. This conduct of the respondents leaves no
manner of doubt that they had accepted the condition of
surrender of land that in exchange of their land, they would be
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (6 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
allotted a Abadi land of a specific area. This is clear from
Annexure.15 of the Executive Officer, Municipality, addressed to
the Deputy Director. He clearly states therein that the appellants
have agreed to surrender their land in exchange of another piece
of land of a specific description in Sanwad area itself. This letter
Annexure.15 clearly recites that the appellants agreed to
surrender the land admeasuring 13237 sq. ft. on the condition of
allotment of equal area of Abadi land in Sanwad Fateh Nagar Road
Side, which was accepted and possession of appellants' land
taken.
9. Importantly, the aforesaid letter Annexure.15 also records
that in the meeting of the Board convened on 27.02.2008, at
agenda No. 2, it was agreed to allot the Abadi land. It, however,
appears that thereafter, various communications were being
exchanged and the matter was forwarded to the State
Government. The fact that the respondents had agreed to allot
Abadi land to the petitioners in lieu of land surrendered by the
petitioners, was with a specific reference to the land as desired by
the appellants i.e. the Abadi land in Sanwad Fateh Nagar Road
Side.
10. The contents of minutes of meeting dated 29.12.2009 of the
Municipal Board, Fateh Nagar, Sanwad, District Udaipur
(Annexure.19) clearly show that the agreement between the
parties was to make the allotment of the land to the petitioners,
keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners in readily agreeing
to surrender their land for public purposes.
11. The conduct of the respondents, however, has been far from
being just and fair, it being a State under Article 12 of the
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (7 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
Constitution of India. It is quite apparent from the documents
placed on record by both the parties that after having taken the
land of the petitioners with their consent, the respondent
authorities started complicating the issue and for one reason or
the other, the petitioners were being harassed by creating
unnecessary confusion with regard to the allotment of Abadi land.
12. The affidavit filed by the respective parties and the
documents placed on record, which are all admitted and not
disputed, make it as clear as day light that the petitioners had
agreed to surrender their land in lieu of allotment of Abadi land in
Sanwad Fateh Nagar Road Side, obviously for the reason that the
appellants were having their land in that vicinity itself and it was a
very prime area. If the respondents were not inclined to accept
the petitioners' offer to surrender their land on the terms and
conditions stated by them, it was open for them to not proceed to
take the possession of petitioners' land through the process of
surrender and agreement, but to acquire the land by taking
recourse to the land acquisition laws. To achieve their objective of
arranging land without loss of time for the purposes of
construction of residential area and other facilities adjacent to the
hospital, the Municipality did not raise any objection and by their
conduct, accepted the terms and conditions of surrender expressly
stated by the appellants in their letter of surrender. It is this
conduct of the respondents which prompted the appellants to
surrender their land and they voluntarily handed over possession
to pave way for construction of public building.
13. It is most unfortunate that after having taken the land of the
petitioners on clear representation of having accepted petitioners'
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (8 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
offer of allotment of Abadi land in Sanwar Fateh Nagar Road Side,
they resiled from their promise and the petitioners were
constrained to file petition before this Court. All this could have
been avoided by simply making allotment of land as stated by the
petitioners in their letter of surrender, once the land of the
petitioners was taken without any objection or variation to the
conditions of offer made by the petitioners. We are, therefore, of
the firm view that the petitioners have been subjected to a very
arbitrary and unreasonable action. The conduct of the respondents
is more like a greedy businessmen rather than a State under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is obliged to act in a
just and fair manner while dealing with the citizens. There is
considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants have been cheated, as their land
was taken on certain assurances of allotment of land in Abadi land
as contained in the petitioners' letter and once the land was taken
for development towards fulfillment of public purpose, the
authorities started avoiding allotment of land on one or the other
frivolous grounds.
14. Present case is a classic example of harassment and the
manner in which the public officials, in the matter of dealing with
an individual, have acted.
15. The land which is being offered to the petitioners is not only
different than what was specified by the petitioners and which was
agreed by the respondents, but is far away from the prime area
known as "Sanwar Fateh Nagar Road Side". From the additional
affidavit and counter to the affidavit filed in the appeal, it is
abundantly clear that there is available land of equivalent area in
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (9 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
the same vicinity (Shown in Khasra No. 1219) situated at "Sanwar
Fateh Nagar Road Side" and which could be easily allotted to the
petitioners towards fulfillment of the promise. Yet, a land far away
from area in Khasra No. 5962/4578 or Khasra No. 5961/4575, is
being offered. It is worth noting that in the additional affidavit
filed by the respondents, it has been clearly stated in para 5
thereof that the parameters followed while giving land are
equivalent value; equivalent position and equivalent size. If we
look into the location of the land of the petitioners, which has
been surrendered, and the location of the land which the
petitioners stated in letter of surrender, the position is equivalent.
It is quite clear that the petitioners were lured and assured to allot
land in the same vicinity where the petitioners' land was situated
and taken by way of surrender.
16. The petitioners have been harassed since 2007 and they
have remained deprived of the land of equivalent size to which
they are entitled for allotment, situated in the same
vicinity/location i.e. "Sanwar Fateh Nagar Road Side", solely
because of the arbitrary action of the respondents. Therefore,
appropriate exemplary cost is required to be imposed on the
respondents for harassing the petitioners.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge, to the extent it lacks
specification of Abadi land, is modified in the manner that the
appellants shall be entitled to allotment of land of equal size as
stated by the them in their letters (Annexure.10 and Annexure.11)
i.e. Abadi land situated in "Sanwad Fateh Nagar Road Side". As
availability of an equivalent piece of land on Khasra No. 1219 has
[2025:RJ-JD:26157-DB] (10 of 10) [SAW-1179/2024]
not been disputed, taking into consideration the long standing
dispute, harassment meted out to the appellants and that they
have remained deprived of the allotment of alternate piece of land
despite they having acted as public spirited citizens and to ensure
that allotment of land takes place forthwith, we hereby direct the
respondent-Municipal Board to allot equivalent piece of vacant
land in Khasra No. 1219. The allotment letter shall be issued
forthwith and, in any case, within a period of 45 days. The
respondents no. 2 and 3 shall also pay a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- to
the appellants within the same period.
18. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the manner and to the
extent stated above.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
6-Jayesh/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
