BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 2/12/2021 in writ petition No. 4564/2004. The appellant-original petitioner was a co-owner of a parcel of land situated in the city of Jaipur. The State Government had initiated acquisition proceeding for acquiring such lands. The writ petition was filed with a prayer for a direction to the authorities to allot 15% of the developed land to the petitioner in lieu of the cash compensation in a nearby scheme of the Jaipur Development Authority as per the Government policy. Further direction sought was not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question till allotment of such land. The writ petition came to be opposed strongly by the respondents which included the State Government as well as the Jaipur Development Authority. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the award was passed for acquiring the land in question by the Land Acquisition officer on 27/1/1975. The possession was taken on 2/7/1982. The compensation was also deposited before the Civil Court on 9/12/1999. Under the circumstances, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge the land vested in the State Government and such acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in which the provisions of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came up for consideration. The learned Judge was of the opinion that in case where the award was passed in the year 1975, the writ petition was filed in 2004 was highly belated. Inter alia on such grounds writ petition was dismissed. It is against this judgment that the original petitioner has filed this appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that learned Single Judge committed an error in treating the petition as challenging the acquisition proceedings which the petitioner had not. The prayer of the petitioner was to allot land in lieu of the acquired land. The request of the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities and was also not considered by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal. In particular, counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the private respondents drew our attention to an affidavit filed by them in writ petition which was filed on or around 28/2/2011 in which they have pointed out that the disputed land was the subject matter of sale agreement dtd. 20/4/1986 executed by the petitioner and his two brothers in favour of New Pink City Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti (hereinafter to be referred as Cooperative Society) for sale consideration of Rs.3,19,910.00 which was received by them through cheque. It is pointed out in the said affidavit that an order was passed by the State Government on 18/1/1990 for conversation and regularisation of the sanction of the said scheme. It is further pointed out that a conversion order was also passed by the Additional Collector on 30/12/1985 in relation to another scheme called Siddharth Nagar. The Cooperative Society in question thereafter came to be developed and the society has also allotted plots in favour of the members. They are lawful owners and occupiers of the respective plots since then. The deponent has produced the agreement to sale dtd. 20/4/1986 along with the said affidavit. Counsel submitted that originally the agreement to sale was executed by the father of the petitioner in the year 1975. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his other brothers confirmed the agreement and that is how the cooperative society came into existence and in possession of the land in question which has been developed with the conversion and regularisation permission granted by the Government. The plot owners are occupying the plots since decades. He submitted that all these facts were concealed by the petitioner. He pointed out that to the said affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the petitioner has filed no rejoinder.