CHANDRA PAL SINGH Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING distressed by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3308/1998 dismissing the challenge to the determination made by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), thereby rejecting the appellant's/writ petitioner's appeal No.9/1997 on 3.4.1998, he (appellant/writ petitioner) is in appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.S.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

(3.) CONTEMPLATING a planned development of the Jaipur City, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for the acquisition of the land mentioned therein, which included as well the residential house of the appellant/writ petitioner's father, Navratan Singh and others located in khasra No.226 in Village Bhojpura, Tehsil Jaipur. Subsequent thereto, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published, and on completion of the legal formalities, as prescribed, the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Officer, on 9.1.1964, passed an award, whereby apart from the monetary compensation to the owners of the huts existing on the sawai chak land of Village Bhojpura and Chak Sudarshanpura. The owners thereof were recommended to be provided smaller plots in the rear site, if feasible, in the scheme area or in some other suitable scheme area at the scheme rate fixed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (later on, nomenclatured as Jaipur Development Authority). This included the appellant/writ petitioner's father. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor -in -interest Navratan Singh alongwith others, filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the competent court for enhancement thereof, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No.70/70. The reference however, was rejected by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.1971. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the JDA') however, did not allot any plot pursuant to the award, and therefore, his predecessor -in -interest and other equally placed awardees did not vacate their structures. However, as with passage of time, the JDA mounted pressure on them to deliver possession thereof, a civil suit was instituted for permanent injunction in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was registered as Civil Suit No.(20/97) 754/85. An order was passed by the said court directing the parties to maintain status quo. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, eventually, the Land and Property Committee, in its meeting held on 5.2.1987, resolved to allot 250 square yards of plots to Navratan Singh, predecessor -in -interest of the appellant/writ petitioner alongwith six others, in compliance of the award treating them to be survey holders of a portion of the land acquired. The price, at which the plots were to be allotted, was also fixed thereby. The plots as well were identified and the appellant/writ petitioner claimed that his predecessor -in -interest was allotted plot No.B -68B, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur and the possession thereof was also handed over on 18.2.1987. He however, alleged that though believing on the assurances of the JDA, he handed over possession of his house and the land in his occupation, and also did withdraw the suit, no formal letter of allotment was issued to him, and instead, a succession certificate was insisted as a pre -condition therefor. He has pleaded that though the other similarly situated awardees were, in terms of the award, allotted the plots, the JDA inspite of production of the succession certificate by him, did not treat him equally, and instead, on 19.12.1996, decided to put his plot No.B -68B to auction. Being aggrieved by this action, the appellant/writ petitioner, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, as aforesaid, on 3.4.1998, whereafter he turned to this Court for its remedial intervention. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has declined to intervene.