SUDHARSHANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner, who claims to be allotted land in Sukhadia Nagar vide order dated 8. 7. 1983 Plot No. 3a-30 has challenged the communication dated 5. 09. 2000 from the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan that as per directions that the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of notification dated 8. 7. 92 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration dated 30. 10. 1993 under Section 6 for implementing the Sukhadia Nagar project has lapsed because no award was made within the period prescribed under Section 11a. He further communicated that as per the report dated 20. 7. 2000 over the land under the acquisition a large number of houses have already been constructed, therefore, it is now not desirable to proceed with the acquisition proceedings of the land referred to in the award and it was further directed that the constructed houses on the land in question may be regularised in accordance with the law concerning regularisation of such allotments.

(3.) THEREAFTER the Dy. Secretary by his communication dated 5. 09. 2000 conveyed the direction of the State that because the courts have already held that the proceedings have lapsed and that now there is no jurisdiction to acquire the land in question, necessary proceedings may be taken for regularisation of the land and most part of which is constructed. The petitioners have challenged this order for the reasons stated hereinabove. The observation made by the Division Bench in earlier case, in my opinion, still holds good. The fact that the petitioner was given a letter of allotment when the Urban Improvement Trust grantee had no interest in the land makes it abundantly clear that the allotment itself does not give any right to the petitioner to enforce that letter against the Urban Improvement Trust. The petitioner raises the contention on the basis that after the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, the land stood vested in Urban Improvement Trust vide notification dated 8. 07. 1987 and published on 30. 07. 1987 possession had already been with the Urban Improvement Trust under the earlier proceedings which have been held to be void, there was no impedement so far as the Urban Improvement Trust is concerned to deliver the possession of the land in his favour since vesting took place in 1987.