Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Krishan Pal Dheer vs State Of Raj And Ors on 31 August, 2022
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4679/2017
Krishan Pal Dheer S/o Shri Dilla Ram Dheer, Aged about 80
years, R/o J-130, Ashok Chowk Road, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan thorough Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary, Indira
Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, Jaipur Development
Authority, Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ram Chandra Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Kuri, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
31/08/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to allot him 25% developed land (20% residential i.e. 420 Square Meter and 5% commercial land i.e. 105 Square Meter) in lieu of compensation and further action of the respondents-JDA to only allot 315 Square Meter land, is sought to be declared illegal with a further prayer for allotment of 105 Square Meter residential land and 105 Square Meter commercial land, to the petitioner in any JDA scheme.
(Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM)
(2 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] The brief facts of case are that the petitioner is a recorded Khatedar of the land bearing Khasra No.1954, measuring 2.69 hectare situated in Revenue Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-JDA had acquired land of the petitioner measuring 2100 Square Meter out of 2.69 Hectare for setting up Ralavta Sewerage Treatment Plant.
The petitioner has pleaded that on account of acquisition of his land by the respondents-JDA, he submitted an application dated 25.08.2015 to the Secretary, JDA, Jaipur for allotment of 25% developed land in favour of the petitioner in the area of Ramnagariya or Goner Ring Road, as per circular of the State Government.
The petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner executed an agreement/declaration dated 26.08.2015 with the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, regarding surrender of his land- measuring 2100 Square Meter, free of cost to the respondents in lieu of 25% compensation.
The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-JDA Authorities at one point of time decided that the petitioner was to get 25% developed land and as such, the petitioner was held entitled for 525 Square Meter of land in lieu of 25% compensation. The petitioner has submitted that the said power was to be exercised as per Section 44 of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.
The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued a reservation letter dated 22.09.2015 in favour of the petitioner regarding 25% developed land measuring 525 Square Meter (20% (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (3 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] residential land equivalent to 420 Square Meter and 5% commercial land equivalent to 105 Square Meter).
The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-JDA issued an allotment letter dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure-5) whereby they mentioned that the petitioner was entitled for 25% of mixed use land and the said allotment letter was in the scheme known as Ring Road Scheme.
The petitioner has pleaded that while prescribing the area, the respondents mentioned only 315 Square Meter of allotment of land and as per the reservation letter dated 22.09.2015 issued in favour of the petitioner, but total land was not allotted to him.
The petitioner has pleaded that he submitted a representation/objection dated 03.11.2016 before the Commissioner, JDA, whereby, he made a request that the petitioner was entitled to get mixed land in lieu of compensation of land measuring 525 Square Meter, but the allotment was made of 315 Square Meter of mixed land by the respondent-JDA.
The petitioner has pleaded that the representation submitted by the petitioner was decided on 24.02.2017, whereby the petitioner was informed that he was not entitled to get 25% mixed use land in lieu of compensation, as the land of the petitioner was agriculture in nature.
The petitioner has pleaded that as per the circular, issued by the State Government dated 27.10.2005 as well as the circular dated 04.12.2015, issued by the JDA, the petitioner was entitled to get 25% developed land in lieu of compensation.
The petitioner has also pleaded that the respondent-JDA has made discrimination in allotment of land to him, as similarly situated persons, whose land was acquired for the purpose of (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (4 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] making Ring Road, such persons were given 25% of land by the respondent-JDA, while the petitioner has not been given the same area of land in lieu of compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma submitted that the action of the JDA, suffers from discrimination and arbitrariness as against the land of the petitioner which was given to the JDA for setting up of Sewerage Treatment Plant, the JDA Authorities were required to allot total 25% land in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the reservation letter dated 22.05.2019 was also issued whereby petitioner was held entitled for 20% residential land i.e. 420 Square Meter and 5% commercial land i.e. 105 Square Meter in lieu of compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-JDA in most arbitrary manner made a reference of mixed use land, allotted to the petitioner, which is not 25% of the total land, which was to be given to the petitioner and in fact they have allotted only 15% of land in favour of the petitioner, by issuing lease deed/patta dated 14.01.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other similarly situated persons whose land was also acquired by the respondent-JDA for construction of Ring Road, that all have been given 25% of land in lieu of their acquired land and the petitioner whose land is situated only about 300 yards away from the Ring Road project, has been denied similar allotment by the respondent-JDA as such, hostile discrimination has been made by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevant details, with regard to the allotment of land to the similarly situated persons, have already been filed with the writ (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (5 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] petition and even the lease deed issued in favour of such persons, are part of record and as such, the respondent-JDA Authorities even while filing reply to the writ petition are not been able to controvert such fact.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner, before approaching this Court, had made a request to the respondent-JDA Authorities that the land, which was given by the petitioner to the JDA Authorities, was near the Ring Road and if 25% of land was to be offered to the petitioner, he was prepared to take such land at a suitable place, including the Nilyakunj Scheme of the JDA, as the reserved price of the land of the petitioner and reserved price of land of different persons, at Ring Road was same. However, the JDA Authorities did not look into the entire aspect of the matter and in an arbitrary manner, they decided that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of 25% of land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondent-JDA for not allotting 25% of the land in favour of the petitioner, is totally based on irrelevant considerations.
Learned counsel submitted that the land of the petitioner is classified as Barani-A and the Ring Road farmers, whose land was acquired, also owned the land of the same category i.e. Barani-A. Learned counsel submitted that the land of the petitioner falls in the category of U-2, as was the land of other persons and as such, no artificial discrimination could have been made by the respondent-JDA.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the circular dated 27.10.2005 of giving option to the petitioner to take 15% (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (6 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] mixed use land, cannot be made applicable as the said circular only provides for 25% developed land to be given to the Khatedars and the petitioner, at no point of time, had raised any grievance against the reservation letter, which was issued by the respondent-JDA.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents by making wrong interpretation of the circular, have allotted 15% mixed use land instead of 25%, and the petitioner being bonafide owner of his land, which has been surrendered to the respondent-JDA for making Sewerage Plant, cannot be put to loss and as such, the respondent-JDA Authorities are required to comply with the directions, which have been issued by the State Government for issuing suitable land to the petitioner.
Learned counsel-Mr. Amit Kuri, appearing for the respondent- JDA has first raised the preliminary objections and submits that the petitioner has executed the lease deed in favour of the respondent-JDA and after execution of lease deed, he does not have any right to assail the said lease deed, alleging that adequate area has not been allotted to him.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has also concealed the fact regarding petitioner's consent to allot 15% land instead of 25% and the petitioner had, in fact, submitted an application dated 30.11.2015 whereby he made a request that the mixed use land may be allotted to him and he was prepared to take lesser area of mixed use land instead of 25%.
Learned counsel submitted that the fact of submitting application by the petitioner has been concealed from this Court and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM)
(7 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] Learned counsel further submitted that the Ring Road area i.e. mixed use area, for allotment of land is not applicable in the present case of the petitioner, as the land of the petitioner was not acquired for Ring Road and even if the land of the petitioner, is abutting the Ring Road or it is in the near vicinity, the same will not result into grant of 25% land in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has tried to blow hot and cold together, as on the one hand, he initially agreed to take 25% land and later on he agreed to take mixed use land, which is of more value and importance and the petitioner himself submitted an application for grant of such mixed use land in his favour and accordingly, the respondent-JDA, has allotted mixed use land to him.
Learned counsel submitted that the circular dated 04.12.2015, issued by the respondent-JDA deals with different situations, where the compensation/land in lieu of acquired land was to be dealt with on Sector Road in different schemes of JDA.
Learned counsel submitted that the land, which is now allotted to the petitioner of mixed use, is at the Ring Road and the petitioner will be able to make commercial use of the said land and as such, the decision which has been taken by the Authorities is absolutely in consonance with the circular dated 04.12.2015, issued by the JDA Authorities.
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5778/2006 (Sudha Parhar Vs. Jaipur Development Authority), decided on 20.11.2014.
Learned counsel, on the strength of said judgment, submitted that once the lease deed is executed and contract of (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (8 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] exchange is fully executed and sealed, then the person cannot be allowed to agitate his rights to claim further land and as such, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be entertained by the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vithal Rao reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 689.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said judgment, submitted that no classification can be made on the basis of public purpose as also on the basis of compensation, for which the land is acquired.
Learned counsel, on the strength of the said judgment, submitted that if the land of the petitioner is also in the vicinity of Ring Road and the other similarly situated persons have been granted compensation, then no discrimination should be allowed to be made only on location of the land of the petitioner.
I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that initially a reservation letter dated 22.09.2015 was issued by the respondent-JDA, wherein, they decided to allot 25% developed land to the petitioner i.e. 20% residential land and 5% commercial land measuring 420 Square Meter and 105 Square Meter, respectively.
This Court finds that the respondent-JDA issued lease deed dated 14.01.2016 in favour of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was allotted a land for mixed use measuring 300 Square Meter in the Ring Road Scheme. There is yet another allotment (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (9 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] letter of the same date, of 12.5 Square Meter in favour of the petitioner of mixed use land.
This Court finds that the petitioner submitted an application dated 16.11.2015 before the respondent-JDA Authorities, wherein he made a request that if area of the land as mentioned in the reservation letter dated 22.09.2015, which has been issued to him and the land which he surrendered to the respondent-JDA, situated near Ring Road and there was no difference in their reserve price, then the area allotted to him of 525 Square Meter, may be reduced or increased. The said letter dated 16.11.2015 has been shown to this Court by learned counsel for the respondent-JDA from the office file.
This Court finds that the respondents in their reply have also mentioned about the application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of mixed use land and as such, before issuance of lease deed on 14.01.2016 and after issuance of reservation letter dated 22.09.2015, the petitioner himself has submitted before the respondent-JDA Authorities that the reservation, which has been made for allotment of 25% developed land, may be considered for the purpose of allotment of land to him near the Ring Road.
This Court further finds that the petitioner subsequently has again addressed a letter to the JDA Authorities on 30.11.2015, wherein, he made a request that the JDA Authorities were having another scheme known as "Nilay Kunj Scheme" and the Ring Road, which was being constructed by the JDA was also having a reserved price of the same value then the petitioner could be allotted land in the Nilay Kunj Scheme of the JDA.
This Court finds that if the allotment letter dated 22.09.2015 was issued, whereby 25% of the developed land was to be given (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (10 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] to the petitioner and he himself submitted an application before the respondents-JDA Authorities for allotting him land of mixed use, and no such fault is found to have been committed by JDA Authorities while taking decision to allot land to the petitioner.
This Court further finds that the petitioner is claiming parity with those persons whose land has been acquired for the Ring Road Scheme of the JDA and the location of land of the petitioner is not in the same vicinity, which has been acquired for the purpose of construction of Ring Road and if his land is situated near the vicinity of Ring Road, the same does not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to say that he has to be given similar area of land, which has been given to the other persons, whose land has been acquired by the respondent-JDA for the purpose of construction of Ring Road.
This Court finds little substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that land of the petitioner was situated near the same vicinity and it is only about 300 yards away, and JDA itself had issued Patta to the similarly situated persons and the same yardstick should be applied in the case of the petitioner, suffice it to say by this Court that the location of the petitioner is not on the Ring Road and those farmers whose land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ring Road, such persons have been given land in lieu of their acquired land.
This Court also finds that the petitioner has been given land of mixed use, on his own asking and the JDA Authorities have given 15% of the mixed use land instead of 25% i.e. 20% residential land and 5% commercial land and the land, which has been offered to the petitioner, is having the commercial value, as (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) (11 of 11) [CW-4679/2017] the same is abutting the Ring Road and as such, no fault can be found with the decision taken by the JDA Authorities.
Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Bhavnesh Kumawat/Ramesh Vaishnav 38 (Downloaded on 07/09/2022 at 11:28:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)