AAPU Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant batch of special appeals has been preferred against the self same judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.01.2016. The present batch of writ petitions was filed assailing the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect to their subject land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1894'), and it was prayed that the land acquisition proceedings initiated against them stand lapsed in view of sub -section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2013'). Undisputedly, after the notices came to be served, no written response to the writ petition was filed by either of them to controvert the pleadings, justifying the action of the respondents on being prayed that the land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

(2.) It reveals from the record that it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the writ -petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing writ petitions, details whereof have been referred in para -3 of the impugned order. It is relevant to mention that Chhotu Khan (appellant in connected SAW No.228/2016) was not the writ -petitioner in the earlier batch of writ petitions and while disposing of the earlier batch of writ petitions by common order dated 25.08.2009, apart from direction to the State authorities to consider the respective claims of the writ -petitioners in light of the circulars of the Government, dated 26.05.2002, 16.02.2002, 16.10.2007 and 02.11.2007, the UIT was directed to pass a speaking order and at the same time, liberty was granted to the writ -petitioners to challenge the validity of acquisition proceedings also, if so advised.

(3.) It is brought to the notice of the Court that the representation made by each of the writ petitioner in the earlier batch of writ petitions came to be rejected by the UIT, Ajmer vide its order dated 03.01.2012 in the case of Smt. Aapu W/o Taj Mohammad and Others, copy of which has been placed on record, assigning reasons and according to the appellants, on rejection of their representation by the UIT, Ajmer, it was open to the writ -petitioners to question the validity of the acquisition proceedings in the independent proceedings, permissible to them by law and after the rejection of their representation, the present batch of writ petitions came to be preferred assailing the acquisition proceedings with the aid of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.