RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. (RRVPNL), Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH SECRETARY, ENERGY, SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, by order dated 31st October, 2006, with reference to the award dated 6th October, 2002, remanded the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Bayana, District Bharatpur, to make an award afresh for correct compensation, affording an opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. As a consequence thereof, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 31st January, 2007 (Annexure-11); of which the petitioner is aggrieved of, and therefore, has instituted the present writ petition praying for the following relief(s):

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details the essential skeletal material facts are that the State government issued a notification dated 2nd February, 1996, for acquiring the agricultural land bearing Khasra Number 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 situated in Village Bayana, District Bharatpur. The notification was published in the State Gazette on 14th February, 1996. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the land for the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short "the RSEB"), for extension working of 132 K.V. Grid Sub Station at Bayana, District Bharatpur. Further, a notification under Section 17(4) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894"), was issued on 29th May, 1997 and was published in the extraordinary State Gazette on 4th June, 1997. The Land Acquisition Officer determined 80% interim award vide award dated 4th 5 September, 1996, which was later on amended vide order dated 1st September, 1998. The petitioner deposited interim compensation amount with the Land Acquisition Officer, Bayana, on 17th September, 1998, but for khatedars - Kanhaiya and Shiv Lal, all other khatedars received the amount in terms of the compensation.

(3.) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 31st October, 2006, made by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, for inherent lack of jurisdiction in the face of sub-section (1) of Section 11 so also Section 15(A) of the Act of 1894; however, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013"), emphatically argued that the writ petition has virtually become infructuous in view of the mandate of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and law declared by the Supreme Court while interpreting the contemplation under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Reliance is placed on the opinion in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.: (2015) 3 SCC 355 ; Magnum Promoters Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.: (2015) 3 SCC 327 and Soorajmull Nagarmull v. State of Bihar and Ors.: (2015) 10 SCC 270 , so also on a recent pronouncement in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors.: JT 2016 (9) 65.