Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Murlidhar Haritwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 24 November, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16657/2015
S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPL. NO.14738/2015
Dr. Murlidhar Haritwal Son of Late Shri Khushla Ram
Haritwal, aged about 70 years, by caste Jat, resident of
Haritwal Clinic, Khatu Road, Ringus, district Sikar
(Raj.)
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through it Chief Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. District Collector, District Sikar (Raj.)
3. Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Ringus, district
Sikar (Raj.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition Officer,
L.C. No. 108, Ringus Railway Over bridge, Office of Sub
Divisional Officer, Shri Madhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
5. Project Director, National Highway Authority of
India, Ministry of Transportation, Govt. of India,
Office Plot No. 187-188, Vinayak Vijar, Near Piprali
Circile, Jhunjhunu by pass, Sikar (Raj.)
6. Land Holder Tehsildar, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, district
Sikar (Raj.)
7. Sub Registrar/Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Sri Madhopur,
district Sikar
Non-Petitioners
DATE OF ORDER : : 24th November, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
*******
Shri Sultan Singh Kuri for the petitioner.
## 2 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to award the compensation in relation to the land acquired and its construction according to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in favour of petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (herein after referred as "Act of 1894") dated 13.04.2012, wherein the land of the petitioner is being acquired by the government. In the above notification, at Sr. No. 7, under the column 5 bearing heading as name of Khatedar instead of the name of the petitioner, Government Ministry of Transportation is shown, despite the fact that the petitioner is original patta holder of the land. Before issuing of the lease deed, a boundary wall and a house measuring 8x10 foot was already constructed on the land. On having the knowledge of notification, the petitioner immediately submitted his detailed objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 to the S.D.O. Shri Madhopur on 11 th May, 2012. The rate of a commercial land at time of issuance of notification i.e. on 13.04.2012 is around Rs. 1,10,000/- 3 per sq.mtr. and the DLC rate as on 26.03.2012 is Rs.41,998/-per sqr. mtr. The grave disparity between the DLC rate and the market rate will highly prejudice the interest of the petitioner. Being aggrieved from the wrong mention of the owner's name of said land, the petitioner filed above objection to Land Acquisition Officer, Sri Madhopur but the grievance of petitioner has not been solved. Then he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15440/2012 before this Court which was disposed off by order dated 04.10.2012. In compliance of order dated 04.10.2012 the petitioner sent a objection/representation along with certified copy of order dated 04.10.2012 at Land Acquisition Office and prayed for correction of title and compensation. The respondent Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the representation of petitioner and issued award against the construction of shops and boundary wall of land in question in favour of Transport ministry in place of petitioner and directed to receive compensation amount Rs. 2,06,166/-. Against the notice dated 26.08.2015 the petitioner filed a reference under Section 64 of Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the 4 District and Sessions Judge, Sikar which is still pending. It is contended that when the fact of filing the above reference came into the knowledge of respondent, then the respondent tried to take possession of land in question without giving any compensation against the acquired land as per market price.
Having regard to the facts aforesaid, instead of directly entertaining the writ petition, the District and Sessions Judge, Sikar is directed to decide the reference matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed off. Stay application also stands disposed off.
(Mohammad Rafiq),J.
RS/65