SANJAY TYAGI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Public Interest Litigation relates to a land, which exists in the heart of Jaipur City, known as Rambagh Area. A decision was taken somewhere in the month of February, 1973 to acquire the land of Ram Bagh Area and, thereafter, a Gazette Notification was issued under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short "UIT Act of 1959"). Acquisition was challenged by Brigadier Bhawani Singh (erstwhile Ruler), Gandhi Grah Nirman Co-operative Society and many other persons. Acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. On dismissal of the S.L.P., an award was passed on 18.10.1993. Petitioner has come up with this petition alleging encroachment on the part of land so acquired. It is submitted that private respondents are having political and bureaucratic shelter to maintain illegal possession on acquired land worth crores of rupees. Looking to aforesaid, a direction has been sought on the State Government and on its authorities to remove encroachments from Rambagh Campus area to make it part of Central Park.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Secretary, Department of Town Planning, Government of Rajasthan informed Officer on Special Duty, Town Planning Department regarding Government's decision to acquire land around Rambagh Palace Hotel and residency palace situated in village Bhawani Shankerpura and Bhojpura vide letter dated 24.02.1973. Pursuant to the aforesaid, a Notification was issued under Section 52(1) followed by a notice under Section 52(2) of the UIT Act of 1959. In the notice under Section 52(2), acquisition was sought for the land nearby Rambagh Palace Hotel, however, in the Notification, the word "vacant" was added before word "land", which has become root cause for encroachment though "vacant land" denotes entire area of various khasra numbers shown therein, excluding only those areas, which were not intended to be acquired. Like in khasra No. 72 of village Bhawani Shankherpura, 8 bighas of land of Ashok Club was excluded from acquisition apart from 3 bighas 1 biswa of land in khasra No. 111 of village Bhojpura. The notice was having boundaries of the land indicating north side to be Prithviraj Road of C-Scheme, in south side Bhawani Singh Marg and S.M.S. Stadium, in east side Tonk Road and Kanota House and in the west, Bhagwan Das Road, Secretariat, Agricultural Department and Accountant General Office. With the aforesaid indications, entire land in those boundaries were sought to be acquired leaving few areas specifically mentioned therein. On 02nd April, 1974, an order was passed on the objections raised by various parties, which include Brigadier Bhawani Singh, S.M.S. Investment Corporation (Private) Ltd., Rajasthan Polo Club, Golf Club, Jaipur Horse Breeding and Riding Association, Flower International, Field Club and Gandhi Grah Nirman Co-operative Society. Therein, a recommendation was made for acquisition of land after hearing objections. Thereafter, a Notification was issued on 11.07.1974 indicating that as per provision of Section 54(4) of the Act of 1959, the land vests in the government from the date of Gazette Notification under Section 52(1) of UIT Act of 1959. While the proceedings for acquisition were going on, a challenge to acquisition of land was made on various grounds. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Special Leave Petition so preferred by Gandhi Grah Nirman Co-operative Society was dismissed on 30.03.1993. On dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 18.10.1993 for the land measuring 322 bighas 8 biswas.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner urged that entire land of khasra Nos. 72, 75 and 77 of village Bhawani Shankerpura was acquired (except for Ashok Club) and accordingly, the award was passed. In these khasra numbers, the land has been encroached upon mainly by the non-petitioner Nos. 6 to 11. This is due to political and bureaucratic shelter to these respondents. The compensation awarded was deposited with the Civil Court followed by a Reference Application for enhancement of compensation at the instance of Brigadier Bhawani Singh. The Government is mainly supporting private respondents due to their political approach and thereby certain letters were issued to favour the respondents despite acquisition of entire land and deposition of compensation thereupon. This is more so when few non-petitioners had earlier approached this High Court to challenge the acquisition with unfavourable result. In a petition filed by Shri Ram Saran Gupta, Smt. Mridula Gupta and M/s. Suramas Properties Pvt. Ltd., specific plea was taken that bungalow No. 36, "Kanak Bhawan" situated in khasra No. 77 of village Bhawani Shankerpura consisting an area of 3890 sq. mt. was never intended to be acquired, thus the Notifications under Sections 52(1) and 52(2) of the Act of 1959 have been wrongly issued. The Officer on Special Duty. Town Planning Department exceeded to its jurisdiction in issuing Notification for entire property/land of khasra No. 77. The writ petition bearing No. 3931/1993 was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 08.09.1993 holding that pursuant to judgment of the Division Bench so as the judgment of Apex Court, challenge to the acquisition cannot be accepted, it becomes second round of litigation to challenge the acquisition. It was held that challenge at the instance of petitioners (respondents in this case) is not maintainable rather the petitioners therein i.e. owners of "Kanak Bhawan" are having agreement to sale only and, that too, such agreement to sale was executed after publication of Notification for acquisition. Hence, even the agreement to sale was held to be void. The matter did not end here as in a civil suit filed by Smt. Mridula Gupta, Ram Saran Gupta and M/s. Suramas Properties Pvt. Ltd., an order was passed on 06.08.2005 holding that in view of the judgment of High Court in this case, the land vests in the government, thus specific performance of the agreement cannot be enforced and agreement was held to be void. The aforesaid order was passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) after passing of the award, yet neither the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) nor the judgment of this High Court was challenged by the respondents and those orders/judgments became final against the respondents-owners of the bungalow No. 36 i.e. "Kanak Bhawan". The State Government yet not taken any action against the encroachers. Even in regard to the property of other respondents falling in khasra Nos. 72, 75 and 77 of old village Bhawani Shankerpura, entire land stood acquired. However, a confusion is tried to be created by the private respondents by giving misinterpretation to the word "vacant land" used in the notification to show that structures occupied by them does not fall within the meaning of "vacant land". When original notice dated 24.03.1973 was issued, the word "vacant land" was not existing though in the Notification of the same date, the words "vacant land" exist. However, looking to the meaning of the word "vacant" as given in various dictionaries, "an unoccupied house" is also considered to be within the meaning of "vacant" but the private respondents are trying to demonstrate that it is only the land, which was acquired leaving the part where structure exists. The aforesaid plea is not sustainable not only in the light of the acquisition proceedings but even in view of award passed subsequently for entire land even where buildings exist. None of the respondents yet challenged the award if the same was contrary to Notification issued under Section 52(1) and 52(2) of the Act of 1959, In view of provisions of Section 52(4) of the Act of 1959, the land vests in the government on issuance of notification under Section 52(1)(2) of the Act of 1959. Thus, in the light of aforesaid, inaction on the part of respondents against encroachers has been made subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation.