BABULAL SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises in the present writ petition is whether the respondents are competent to take over the possession of part of Khasra No. 35 situated in village Bhojpura, Jaipur near Jaipur as deemed to have been acquired without issuing any notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was applicable at the relevant time and also whether if by mistake or otherwise by in-advertance compensation is determined for the land in question in the award even though not acquired, which could not have been so determined for the reason that the land was never so acquired by any notification and the said compensation having been paid to the petitioner or his predecessors, which compensation as now admitted and not denied, as a matter of fact, stands refunded to the respondents and the respondents having accepted back the above said compensation, are still entitled to say that the land measuring 3 Bighas 10 Biswas out of Khasra No. 35 which Khasra number measured 3 Bighas and 16 Biswas has vested in the respondents and whether that the petitioner can be deprived of the fruits and the utilisation of this land which was never acquired in accordance with law and whether the petitioner can be deprived of his property without authority of law?

(2.) THE admitted facts are that Shri Chotte Lal son of Jhuntha Ram Mali was holding a Khatedari right of Khasra Nos. 34 measuring 2 Biswas, Khasra No. 35 measuring 3 Bigha 16 Biswa, Khasra No. 36 measuring 6 Biswa, Khasra No. 37 measuring 10 Biswa and Khasra No. 277 min. measuring 10 Biswa situated in village Bhojpura Tehsil Jaipur presently known as Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. Vide notification dated 13. 5. 1960 issued u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as published on 9. 6. 1960 at page 151 of the Gazette certain land was acquired. THE intention was show to acquire the aforesaid khasra numbers of Khatedari of the father of the petitioner along with other land mentioned in the notification for the purpose of constructing a stadium and the High Court building etc.

(3.) IN view of the above-said position, the counsel for the petitioner states that the land in question for which there was no notification, nor the acquisition was notified u/s 4 or 6, even if by mistake the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation and received by the petitioner by way of mistake as treating it to be the compensation for part of Khasra number which was acquired i. e. 6 Biswas only and now having been refunded back to the State Government and the State Government having so accepted and not sending it back to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been acquired by any stretch of imagination and the dictum of the Civil Writ Petition No. 261/70 (supra) and the dictum as given by the Division Bench in AIR 1974 (Raj.) 116 (supra) were fairly applicable in the case of the petitioner as well.