MAHESH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was in possession of certain properties in a background which is not relevant, but partaking the character of Nuzul property. On an application filed on 09.08.2001 before the competent authority, the said properties were sold to the petitioner on 15.09.2001 for a consideration of Rs. 1,32,200/ -. The petitioner was required to deposit the entire amount in the Government Treasury in one installment and the sale -deed was to be executed and registered after the decision in Execution Application No. 17/1996 pending before the Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Weir. Vide order dated 01.10.2001, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount in favour of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Bharatpur Division) which was so deposited under challan dated 10.10.2001.

(2.) IT is submitted that vide order dated 14.09.2007, the Executing Court held that the disputed property was indeed Nuzul property. No appeal was filed or other proceedings were initiated against the order dated 14.09.2007, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Application No. 17/1996. The order attained finality. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application on 03.10.2007 before the Secretary, Department of General Administration (Estate), Secretariat, Jaipur to execute a formal sale -deed of the land in issue along with four shops constructed thereon in his favour. But to no avail.

(3.) IT is submitted that even though an award had been passed on 28.11.2007 by the LAO acquiring the strip of land along with four shops in the petitioner s possession, his claim for compensation has not been considered arbitrarily and contrary to the specific provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956. It has been submitted that in terms of Section 3G(4) of the Act of 1956 all "persons interested" in the land acquired have a right to claim compensation. The case of the petitioner for grant of compensation ought to have been considered by the LAO in the circumstances set out before him, but has not been considered on the LAO's misdirection in holding that without the petitioner's formal ownership of the land acquired by way of registered sale -deed even though he was lawfully in possession, no claim at his instance was maintainable.