JANAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents placed on record, we are of the view that the petitioners deliberately stated wrong facts in the writ petition that they have no personal interest in this litigation and the present4 petition is public interest litigation. Voluminous documentary evidence in the form of Annex.R/1 and R/2 clearly reveal that petitioners are engaged in property dealing in the area concerned for which land valuation has been assessed by the District Level Committee. The petitioners even did not choose to dispute the correctness of the Annex.R/1 wherein the involvement of the petitioners in several property transactions have been shown. The petitioners submitted a rejoinder to the reply of the State and in para no.1 admitted the fact that they are engaged in land/property dealings in this manner ....However, the petitioners are not only engaged in business, profession and work as alleged by the respondents, but also, the petitioners are vigilant person of the society..... . However, the petitioners in the same para contradicted their own stand, referred above by stating .....Therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioners with regard to vested interest for the various reasons are completely voiced from ulterior motive and are incorrect... Even otherwise the petitioners' mere denial of facts disclosed by the respondent in reply to writ petition is no denial in the eye of law and in that situation this mere denial of fact amounts to admission of fact as per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badat & Co., Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co, 1964 AIR(SC) 538 held that evasive or vague denial of facts in written statement may be taken as the fact5 has been admitted. The petitioners who had personal knowledge of their own business and profession vaguely pretended to deny the allegations and in fact, admitted the fact as stated by the respondents in the reply and then tried to improve their stand by saying that ....cause is not only confine to only the petitioners but also entitling its an public issue.... By this stand, the petitioners admitted that the cause has been espoused by them for their own benefit and by this they proved that their plea in the writ petition that they have no personal interest in the present litigation, is totally false statement of fact. In view of the above reasons, the present writ petition is Paisa (business) interest litigation and not public interest litigation and is liable to be dismissed only on this count.

(3.) Apart from above, the plea raised by the petitioners in the writ petition that the DLC rates have been increased by the District Level Committee so that the enhanced compensation may be given to the land owners in case the land is acquired by the State Government for any public purpose is concerned, for that plea there is no factual foundation. The petitioners failed to show any collusion of all the members of the committee with the land owners whose land is liable to be acquired by the State Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, AP & Ors, 1994 4 SCC 595 wherein after considering6 the Section 47A of the Stamps Act it is has been held that the rates given in the in the basic valuation register (as DLC rates in Rajasthan) cannot be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the land acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. In another case delivered in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru & Ors Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) & Anr, 1995 1 SCC 717 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the the basic valuation register is maintained by the municipalities (in Andra Pradesh) on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, which cannot form the basis for determination of market value of the land under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In yet another case delivered in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Mohabir Singh & Ors, 1996 1 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where the Sub-Registrar formed his opinion merely on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government obviously of fixing the rates under Section 47A of the Stamps Act directed the executant of the document to revise the instrument and fix the consideration for the purpose of stamp duty as per the rate fixed under Section 47A., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the guidelines provided by the State would only serve as prima faice material available before the Registering Authority to alert him regarding the value of the property and no absolute7 higher or minimum value can be predetermined and it would dependent on prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered by the instrument is situated. It would be only on objective satisfaction that the authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued when it is presented for registration. The ultimate decision would be with the Collector subject to the decision on an appeal before the District Court as provided under subsection (4) of Section 47A. From the above it is clear that one cannot claim the compensation for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act merely on the basis of the rate assessed by the District Level Committees.