Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Tulsi Devi (Since Deceased) ... vs . State Of Raj. & Ors. on 15 April, 2014
Author: M.N.Bhandari
Bench: M.N.Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15182/2011. Smt. Tulsi Devi (since deceased) through her LR's Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order: 15/04/2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI, J. Mr.VV Harit, for petitioners. Mr.Anruoop Singhi & Mr.Kushagra Sharma), Mr.Rajesh Kapoor ), for respondents.
The writ petition is listed on application for final disposal at the admission stage.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the writ petition is heard and decided at this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the acquisition, the agreed award was passed on 13.02.2007. The allotment of 25% of land in lieu of acquisition would be made in favour of those whose name exists in the 'jamabandi'. The corresponding and other relevant documents would be submitted for that purpose. In case of death of one of the land owner and no dispute between the successor, the 25% land would be given to the successor who's name exists in the record. It was also made clear that in case of civil suit/revenue suit or any other litigation, pending between the parties, award would remain subject to final outcome of the aforesaid litigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a land belonging to Jamana Devi was acquired who died living legal heirs out of which, four legal heirs could manage their name in 'jamabandi' and are claiming allotment of 25% developed land of the land acquired. The petitioners have preferred a revenue suit and is pending before the competent authority. In view of the above, the respondents should not allot 25% developed land in favour of few successors who could manage their name in 'jambandi'.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board submits that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the determination of right of the petitioners would be on disposal of the revenue suit as presently their name does not exist in the revenue record. In any case, the agreed award makes it clear that execution of the award would be subject to outcome of the litigation between the parties. Thus, petitioners have already been safeguarded.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition.
I find that the writ petition has been unnecessarily filed herein inasmuch as the agreed award for acquisition is clear in his terms. The relevant part of the award is quoted herein for ready reference : -
"?????? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ???????, ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ? ???? ?? ??????????? ? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??????????????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????/??????/?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????/??????/?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????/???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?"
A perusal of the para quoted above reveals that allotment of land would be made in favour of those in whose name exists in 'jamabandi' and in case of death of one of khatedar, the land would be allotted to those successor whose name has entered in the 'jambandi' and there is no dispute.
In view of the above, the respondent-Housing Board was free to make agreed award but aforesaid would be subject to final outcome of the litigation, which exists between the parties. The agreed award would not effect the rights of the petitioners in pending litigation, rather if they remain successful then would be entitled for the share in the land.
With the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of so also the stay application.
(M.N.BHANDARI), J.
N.Gandhi 57 Certificate- All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Naval Kishore Gandhi P.A.cum judgment writer