NARPAT SINGH Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTIFICATION under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was published in the State Gazette in June 1960, acquiring land in the localities of Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur, adjacent to Jaipur city for urban development, viz. for multi purpose project of constructing legislative assembly, MLA quarters and planned development of city, popularly known as 'Lal Kothi Scheme'. The exact public purpose for acquisition is not discernible from the record but that is immaterial for our present purpose. The NOTIFICATION under Section 4 was followed by declaration under Section 6/05/1961. The persons whose land was acquired under the scheme include the four appellants before us. On 9-1-1964, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing monetary compensation at the rate of Rs. 1800.00 per bigha, i.e. approximately 60 paise per sq. yard. In addition to the amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer also directed plots of 2000 or 1000 sq. yards to be allotted to the appellants in the very scheme for which the land was acquired. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants and the State Government both sought for reference to the Civil Court. The reference Court modified the quantum of compensation by increasing the same to Rs. 4.50p. per sq. yard while upholding the allotment of residential plots. The State Government preferred appeals questioning the enhancement. On 17-8-1971, a tripartite settlement was arrived at as amongst the claimants, the State Government and the Urban Improvement Trust (the predecessor of Jaipur Development Authority) according to which it was agreed (a) that the claimants accept the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer; (b) that the allotment of residential plots to the claimants measuring 2000 or 1000 sq. yards each in the same scheme shall stand subject to payment of price by the allottees @ Rs. 8.00 per sq. yard which price shall be paid by the allottees to the UIT deducting therefrom the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer; and (c) that the contest on the amount of compensation is given up and the State of Rajasthan and the UIT shall not prosecute the appeal. A compromise petition, incorporating the terms of settlement, was filed in the High Court and taken on record disposing of the appeal in terms of settlement. On 12-10-1982, UIT was dissolved and was replaced by Jaipur Development Authority which took over the assets and liabilities of UIT.

(2.) THE appellants filed execution application seeking implementation of the award made by the High Court based on the compromise. For want of contest before the executing Court, warrants of possession were directed to be issued and in pursuance thereof possession over the residential plots allotted to the respective appellants was delivered on 29-5-1984. Laying challenge to the order of executing Court, the State of Rajasthan and JDA preferred revision petitions before the High Court which were dismissed. In the special leave petition preferred before this Court, by order dated 15-2-1988, it was directed that the judgment debtors shall have the liberty of raising their objection to the execution application before the executing Court which shall be decided after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. On 1-6-1990, the executing Court rejected the objections filed by the respondents and upheld the maintainability of the execution application. In civil revisions preferred by the respondents, the High Court formed an opinion that the judgment of the High Court, based on the compromises and directing plots to be allotted to the appellants in addition to the monetary compensation, suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, was inexecutable. THE revision petitions were decided ex parte. Armed with the order of High Court, on 12-8-1996. JDA resumed possession over the residential plots. Since then, the plots are in possession of JDA excepting plot Nos. C-89 and C-90 out of total area whereof, 555 sq. mts. area has been allotted by JDA to Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited which has constructed a full-fledged building of its own over the land allotted to it.

(3.) THERE may be merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the submission which was advanced so forcefully. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the present one is not a fit case where we may exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vesting in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution favourably to the appellants and upset the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, propose to dismiss the appeals but subject to directions necessary to meet to the ends of justice and briefly place on record our reasons for doing so.