RAMLAL BAIRWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17. 05. 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 3076/02, whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition before this Court with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ order of direction directing the respondents to release the payment of compensation of Rs. 4,53,257/- immediately in favour of the petitioner. THE petitioner averred in the writ petition that he is the member of Scheduled Caste. He was khatedar tenant of land bearing Khasra No. 410/1/1 measuring 19 biswa (2831 sq. yards residential and 43 sq. yards Barani ). THE said land was acquired by respondents. A notice u/s 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the petitioner (Annexure 1 ). THEreafter, a final award was passed and a sum of Rs. 4,53,257/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner. THE petitioner further pleaded that in spite of awarding compensation in his favour, he has not been paid the amount of compensation. He moved an application before Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department, Circle III, Jaipur requesting him to release the amount of compensation. He also submitted that the possession of land has already been taken and construction of the high level road bridge over river (Bandi) has taken place but, the amount of compensation in lieu of acquired land has not been paid. Subsequently, the petitioner was told that a cheque of the aforesaid amount was prepared but, it was given to some other Ramlal and soon after when respondents came to know about it, then they lodged FIR No. 386/97 at Police Station, Dadar, district Jaipur, which was registered u/s 420 IPC, a copy of which has also been placed on record as Annexure 3 with the writ petition. THE petitioner ultimately served a notice of demand of justice but, amount was not paid and under these circumstances, he filed the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have already prepared the cheque of the amount of compensation and the same has been paid to one Ramlal, who was subsequently found to be forged person and not the real Ramlal. THEir argument is that they have already lodged the F. I. R. in the matter and the challan has already been filed. THE matter is sub-judice before the Criminal Court.