KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, i. e. Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil First Appeal No. 29/1999 dated 31. 10. 2001, by which it had affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 34/1999 dated 5. 4. 99.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that certain land of the appellants had been acquired long back alongwith the land of others and respondent No. 4. After completing the requirements of law, possession of the land had been taken and vested in the State free from all incumbrances. THE land was used for the purpose it had been acquired, but certain pieces of land out of the land originally owned by the appellant-plaintiffs remained un-used for the purpose. THE respondent No. 4 had not been paid full amount of compensation and the matter remained pending. He applied to the concerned Authorities that in lieu of compensation, the surplus land may be allotted to him. Appellant-plaintiffs, apprehending that the land may be allotted to respondent No. 4, filed the civil suit seeking relief of restraining the Authorities to allot the land to respondent No. 4 and further seeking the relief of allotment of land to them. THE suit had been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5. 4. 99 on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable at the benefit of the appellants and they had no locus standi after their land had vested in the State and as the land once vested in the State free from all incumbrances, the same cannot be divested; if a part of the land remains unused for the purpose it had been acquired, it is the sole concern of the Authority how to use it; moreso, jurisdiction of civil court was impliedly barred by Section 9 of the Code of civil Procedure, as the land Acquisition act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") is a complete Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant preferred first appeal, which has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 31. 10. 2001. Hence this appeal.

(3.) IN Satyendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U. P. & Ors. (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh (supra) and the Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Kishan (4), and held that once the land vested in the State after taking the possession under Section 16 of the Act, it cannot be divested and even if the award had not been made within the stipulated period, as provided under the Act, the proceedings would not vitiate.