[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rameshwarlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20430) on 29 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20430]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18582/2018
1. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Suraj Mal, Aged About 59 Years, By
Caste Mahazan, Resident Of Gadiyala, Bikaner (Khasra
No. 82/2).
2. Dhapu W/o Shri Suraj Mal,, Aged About 82 Years, By
Caste Mahazan, Resident Of Sakhinande Gadiyala,
Bikaner (Khasra No. 80/1)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
2. The District Collector, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. The Superintending Engineer, Second Stage, Circle First,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. The Executive Engineer, Kolayat Lift Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
6. The Colonization Tehsildar, Kolayat No. 1, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
7. The Tehsildar, Kolayat, District- Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15633/2018
Rameshwarlal S/o Shri Champalal, Aged About 62 Years, By
Caste Mahazan, R/o Gadiyala, Bikaner, (Khasra No.- 79/2).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
2. The District Collector, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. The Superintending Engineer, Second Stage, Circle First,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Praiyojana, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. The Executive Engineer, Kolayat Lift Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:11:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20430] (2 of 4) [CW-18582/2018]
6. The Colonization Tehsildar, Kolayat No.-1, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
7. The Tehsildar, Kolayat, District- Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Bhaiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kumar Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
29/04/2026
SB Civil Writ Petition No.18582/2018 :
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
acquisition proceedings, which were undertaken way back in the
year 2015.
2. In the writ petition an alternative prayer has been made to
direct the respondents to make payment of compensation in lieu
of the land of the petitioners.
3. Mr. Lalit Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Department submits that the acquisition proceedings
have already been completed and after due determination of the
amount of compensation, the same has been paid to the
petitioners.
4. In view of the statement made above, nothing remains to be
adjudicated in the present writ petition and the same has been
rendered infructuous.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become
infructuous.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:11:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20430] (3 of 4) [CW-18582/2018]
6. It will be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy,
in case he is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, if
law so permits.
7. In case, any proceedings are initiated, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law without being influenced by any
observation/liberty granted by this Court.
8. Stay application and all other pending application(s) also
stand disposed of.
SB Civil Writ Petition No.15633/2018 :
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
acquisition proceedings, which were undertaken way back in the
year 2015.
2. In the writ petition an alternative prayer has been made to
direct the respondents to make payment of compensation in lieu
of the land of the petitioners.
3. Mr. Lalit Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Department submits that the final award has already
been passed and compensation, with regard to the land of the
petitioner, has already been calculated. It is further stated that
notices have been issued to accept the compensation, however, no
steps have been taken by the petitioner in this regard.
4. In view of the statement made above, nothing remains to be
adjudicated in the present writ petition and the same has been
rendered infructuous.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become
infructuous.
6. However, since it is admitted factual position that payment
has not been made to the petitioner, it will be open for the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:11:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20430] (4 of 4) [CW-18582/2018]
petitioner to get the said payment by making appropriate
application in that regard. In case, any such application is filed,
the respondents are directed to make payment of compensation
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such
application.
7. It will be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy,
in case he is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, if
law so permits.
8. In case, any proceedings are initiated, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law without being influenced by any
observation/liberty granted by this Court.
9. Stay application and all other pending application(s) stand
dismissed.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
75-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:11:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
