Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chandra Pal Singh vs J D A & Ors on 5 December, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: JUDGMENT :: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.405/2011 Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Ors. Date of Judgment : 5th December, 2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.S.C.Gupta for the appellant. Mr.Dinesh Yadav, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Being distressed by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3308/1998 dismissing the challenge to the determination made by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), thereby rejecting the appellant's/writ petitioner's appeal No.9/1997 on 3.4.1998, he (appellant/writ petitioner) is in appeal.
We have heard Mr.S.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
The pleaded assertions, in short, besides being unavoidable, would outline the factual backdrop.
Contemplating a planned development of the Jaipur City, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for the acquisition of the land mentioned therein, which included as well the residential house of the appellant/writ petitioner's father, Navratan Singh and others located in khasra No.226 in Village Bhojpura, Tehsil Jaipur. Subsequent thereto, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published, and on completion of the legal formalities, as prescribed, the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Officer, on 9.1.1964, passed an award, whereby apart from the monetary compensation to the owners of the huts existing on the sawai chak land of Village Bhojpura and Chak Sudarshanpura. The owners thereof were recommended to be provided smaller plots in the rear site, if feasible, in the scheme area or in some other suitable scheme area at the scheme rate fixed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (later on, nomenclatured as Jaipur Development Authority). This included the appellant/writ petitioner's father. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Navratan Singh alongwith others, filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the competent court for enhancement thereof, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No.70/70. The reference however, was rejected by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.1971. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the JDA') however, did not allot any plot pursuant to the award, and therefore, his predecessor-in-interest and other equally placed awardees did not vacate their structures. However, as with passage of time, the JDA mounted pressure on them to deliver possession thereof, a civil suit was instituted for permanent injunction in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was registered as Civil Suit No.(20/97) 754/85. An order was passed by the said court directing the parties to maintain status quo. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, eventually, the Land and Property Committee, in its meeting held on 5.2.1987, resolved to allot 250 square yards of plots to Navratan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/writ petitioner alongwith six others, in compliance of the award treating them to be survey holders of a portion of the land acquired. The price, at which the plots were to be allotted, was also fixed thereby. The plots as well were identified and the appellant/writ petitioner claimed that his predecessor-in-interest was allotted plot No.B-68B, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur and the possession thereof was also handed over on 18.2.1987. He however, alleged that though believing on the assurances of the JDA, he handed over possession of his house and the land in his occupation, and also did withdraw the suit, no formal letter of allotment was issued to him, and instead, a succession certificate was insisted as a pre-condition therefor. He has pleaded that though the other similarly situated awardees were, in terms of the award, allotted the plots, the JDA inspite of production of the succession certificate by him, did not treat him equally, and instead, on 19.12.1996, decided to put his plot No.B-68B to auction. Being aggrieved by this action, the appellant/writ petitioner, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, as aforesaid, on 3.4.1998, whereafter he turned to this Court for its remedial intervention. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has declined to intervene.
The respondents, in their reply, have categorically contended that the appellant/writ petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of plot No.B-68B in the Lal Kothi Scheme, as claimed by him. While asserting that no land belonging to him had been acquired by the JDA, they maintained that in terms of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam, (1994) 4 SCC 370, Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35 and Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC 666, the award dated 9.1.1964 recommending allotment of land in addition to the monetary compensation granted, was void to that extent. The respondents pleaded that the plot mentioned by the appellant/writ petitioner had been put in auction on 26.12.1996 and was purchased by one M/s.K.D.Developers, to whom thereafter the possession thereof had been handed over and the lease deed had been executed on 20.3.1997. According to the respondents, the Tribunal had rightly rejected the appeal of the appellant/writ petitioner.
Mr.Gupta has strenuously argued that the recommendation of the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Officer for allotment of land to the survey holders in occupation of the government land, in addition to the monetary compensation, was advisory in nature, and as the concerned authorities had resolved to act in terms thereof, the JDA's turn around is apparently illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel insisted that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra), Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain (supra) and Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority (supra) have no application to the present facts as the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, at all relevant points of time, was a survey holder in occupation of government land and the recommendation to allot a plot to him was only for the sake of his rehabilitation following his ouster, as a result of the acquisition. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/writ petitioner thus, by no means, could be equated with a sub-awardee or a transferee qua the land involved, as in the decisions relied upon by the respondents, and thus, their action is per se unsustainable in law and on facts. Apart from insisting that the recommendation of the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Officer is really advisory in nature, and that, in view of the resolution of the Land and Property Committee to allot a plot measuring 250 square yards to the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest alongwith six other equally placed, the respondents are estopped from altering their orientation, Mr.Gupta has argued that the impugned action is per se discriminatory, as the six other awardees had in fact been allotted the plots, as decided.
Mr.Yadav, as against this, emphatically argued that in the teeth of the decisions rendered in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra), Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain (supra) and Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority (supra), the award dated 9.1.1964 to the extent it recommended allotment of plot to the survey holders, in addition to the monetary compensation, is null and void, and thus, the appellant's/writ petitioner's claim is wholly misconceived. While underlining that the Hon'ble Apex Court had persistently disapproved such a recommendation, the learned counsel has argued that as the appellant's/writ petitioner's claim is apparently based on the award dated 9.1.1964, the decision of the respondents is unassailable, and therefore, no interference is called for. As their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra), Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain (supra) and Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority (supra) have, in unequivocal terms, adjudged such allotment of land to be lacking in jurisdiction, the instant appeal is bereft of any merit, and is liable to be dismissed, he insisted.
Both sides referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Mahesh Sharma & Anr., (2010) 9 SCC 782 and Jaipur Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Data & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 94.
We have traversed the rival pleadings as well as the documents appended thereto. We have carefully analyzed the arguments advanced.
That at all relevant times, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/writ petitioner was in possession of a plot of land within the area acquired under the Act, is a matter of record. That he had been in occupation of sawai chak land (government land) with kuchcha houses constructed thereon, is also not disputed. A bare perusal of the award rendered in the acquisition proceeding, makes it abundantly clear that the same encompassed the claim of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/writ petitioner and persons similarly placed. The following extract from the award dated 9.1.1964 would be of ready reference:-
. . . . . . . . . . . .
There are a large number of Kacha Houses on the land under acquisition of villages Bhojpura and Chak Sudarshanpura. I have made a test site checking of these huts and understand that the valuation of the huts prepared and submitted by the Improvement Trust and P.W.D. looks to be quite fair and reasonable. It will be quite appropriate that before the huts are removed an alternative site is provided to these persons. I therefore determine that as per annexure I attached the owners of the huts may be paid compensation noted against their names and should be provided with smaller plots in the rear site, if feasible in this Scheme area or in some other suitable scheme area at the scheme rate fixed by the Improvement Trust. These people area also followed to take away their structure material which would not affect the proposed figure of compensation.
. . . . . . . . .
The above-quoted text would reveal that vis-a-vis the occupants of government land, alike the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Jaipur District Jaipur, awarded monetary compensation to them and were also recommended to be provided with smaller plots of land, if feasible, within the scheme area or other suitable scheme area at the scheme rate fixed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (now JDA).
The relevant excerpt of the resolution dated 5.2.1987 of the Land and Property Committee, being decisively significant, is also quoted hereinbelow:-
???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? 5.2.1987 ???? ????????, ???? ??????, ?????????????, ?????????, ????? ?????? ? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? 1971 ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????-?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????? 250 ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? 110 ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? 8 ?????? ????? ?????? ??? 140 ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? 99 ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? 1 ?????-?????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? 15 ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? 1 The extracted text demonstrates that it had been decided, in compliance of the aforementioned award, that the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Navratan Singh alongwith six others be each allotted 250 square yards of land by realizing the price thereof at the rate of Rs.8/- for the first 110 square yards and Rs.99/- for the remaining 140 square yards.
The appellant's/writ petitioner's claim for allotment of his plot thus, is unimpeachably traceable to the award.
In Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Mahesh Sharma & Anr.(supra), which too involved acquisition of 552 bighas and 8 biswas of land in Village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur for Lal Kothi Scheme, by the award dated 29.4.1971, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer determined a sum of Rs.2,62,680/- as compensation. He did also recommend allotment of additional land measuring 2500 square yards of developed land to be given to the respondent therein. It was noticed that the land acquired was a government land, after the investiture thereof in the government under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. Their Lordships referred to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam to the effect that in terms of Section 31(4) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had no power or jurisdiction to give any land under acquisition or any other land in lieu of compensation. The observation that such a course would run counter to the scheme of the Act, was also noticed. It was further held that the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, and also the award for acquisition of the land was a nullity, as the land was already a government land and was so entered in the revenue records.
Noticeably, even divorced from the contextual facts, the enunciation on the interpretation of Section 31(4) of the Act, as made in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam, is of binding impact.
The claimants in Jaipur Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Data & Anr.(supra), included the khatedars of the land involved, their transferees, nominees/sub-nominees. The Land Acquisition Officer, by the award passed, not only determined the amount of compensation payable to the land owners and beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also directed allotment of plots to the owners, their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the acquired land. Referring to the decision rendered in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra), it was held that the Land Acquisition Officer did not have jurisdiction to direct allotment of land to the awardees/sub-awardees and their nominees/sub-nominees. The following extract from the rendering in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra) was particularly relied upon :-
. . . . . . .This is clearly borne out from the following extracts of para 7 of the judgment: (SCC p.374)
7. A reading of sub-section (4) of Section 31, in our considered view, indicates that the Land Acquisition Officer has no power or jurisdiction to give any land under acquisition or any other land in lieu of compensation. Sub-section (4) though gives power to him in the matter of payment of compensation, it does not empower him to give any land in lieu of compensation. Sub-section (3) expressly gives power 'only to allot any other land in exchange'. In other words the land under acquisition is not liable to be allotted in lieu of compensation except under Section 31(3), that too only to a person having limited interest. . . . .
The view propounded in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra) qua ouster of the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer to allot land in lieu of money compensation, was reiterated in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain, following a detailed reference to Section 31 of the Act and Rules 31 & 36 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956.
In the teeth of the emphatic and consistent verdicts proclaiming lack of competence and jurisdiction of a Land Acquisition Officer to allot land in lieu of compensation, we are of the unhesitant opinion that having regard to the textual facts, as obtained in the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner does not have an enforceable right stemming from the award dated 9.1.1964 as well as the resolution of the Land & Property Committee dated 5.2.1987.
By the award, visibly, the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had been granted monetary compensation. He was, at the relevant time, in occupation of a government land. Even assuming that the recommendation to allot, along with six other awardees, a plot of land in the scheme area or otherwise, had been advisory in nature and not in lieu of compensation, the same, by no means, would vest an inviolable right in the appellant/writ petitioner to constitute an actionable claim justiciable in law. The distinction sought to be highlighted on his behalf thus, cannot be sustained. The fundamental legal principle, as enounced in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam (supra) and reiterated in the subsequent decisions, in our considered view, does not get diluted, even if the recommendation in the award for allotment of a plot of land to the appellant's/writ petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, is in addition to the compensation otherwise granted.
In any view of the matter thus, the appellant's/writ petitioner's claim is not cognizable in law to be judicially enforced. We have perused the impugned judgment and order and find ourselves in respectful agreement with the conclusions recorded therein.
The appeal therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA