Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jitendra Joshi & Ors. V. State Of Raj. ... vs The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The ... on 19 May, 2014
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Jitendra Joshi & Ors. v. State of Raj. RIICO & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.7478/2012) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JD), KOTA SOUTH WHEREBY THE PLAINT OF THE PETITIONERS WAS REJECTED. Date of Judgment :: 19/05/2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, for the petitioner.
The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kota South whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the plaint filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are equally aggrieved by the fact that they have yet to be paid the compensation for the land acquired by the State.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents-defendants to the effect that on 11.7.1996, the State Government issued a notification for acquiring the land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, belonging to the petitioners. As per the plaint, the petitioners submitted their objection regarding the notification dated 11.7.1996. But the respondents neither decide their objection, nor paid any compensation to them. During pendency of the suit, the defendant, RIICO, filed an application on 25.1.2012 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to the effect that the land in dispute has already been acquired under the Act of 1894. After passing of the award in favour of the concerned persons, the compensation has also been deposited in the office of the Tehsildar. Further, possession of the land in dispute has already been handed over to the defendants for establishing an industrial zone. In such circumstances, the civil court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit relating to the Land Acquisition Act. By order dated 28.2.2012, the learned trial court allowed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint. Hence, this petition before this court.
Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that once the State has acquired the petitioners' land, the State was duty bound to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, despite the lapse of eighteen years, the government is yet to pay them any compensation. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has rejected the plaint without assigning any reason. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the respondents had clearly stated before the learned trial court that not only an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, but a compensation was agreed to be paid by the respondents and it was so deposited with the office of the Tehsildar. In the lists submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation, names of the petitioners were duly included. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to tell this court whether the petitioners have contacted with the Tehsildar's office for payment of compensation or not? Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel that no compensation has been paid is contrary to the record. In case the compensation amount has been deposited with the Tehsildar office, it is the petitioner's duty to seek the same from his office. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the petitioners may be dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation payable to them, even then they have sufficient legal remedies for seeking and getting what they believe to be the justified compensation. However, it is a settled position of law that a civil court would not have the jurisdiction to hear a matter relating to Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Magistrate has relied on the case of Laxmichand v. Gram Panchayat, Karadiya [AIR 1996 (SC) 523] and has rightly held that the civil court is debarred from hearing a suit relating to Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for rejecting the plaint. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate has failed to give cogent reasons for rejecting the plaint is unacceptable.
For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN)J. GS All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, Sr. P