Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Kishori Devi vs State Of Raj & Ors on 22 August, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1612/2011 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8723/2005 Managing Director(Admn.) RSRTC Vs. Smt. Kishori Devi & Ors. (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1349/2011 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8723/2005 Smt. Kishori Devi Vs. Managing Director(Admn.) RSRTC & Ors. Date of Judgment: August 22, 2012 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Rajeev Surana, for the appellant in SAW No.1612/2011 and for respondents in SAW No.1349/2011 Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. H.S. Khandelwal, for respondents in SAW 1612/2011 and for appellant in SAW No.1349/2011 BY THE COURT(Per Jain J.)
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Both the special appeals are directed against order of Single Bench dated 2nd May, 2011, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8723/2005 filed by petitioner/appellant Smt. Kishori Devi, has been allowed and respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'RSRTC') has been directed to make payment of compensation of Rs.2,58,490/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date land was taken in possession of RSRTC. Being aggrieved with the order of Single Bench, both the parties have preferred these two special appeals.
3. Submission of learned counsel for RSRTC is that out of total land measuring 6923.5 Sq. Yds., the RSRTC utilised only 1114 Sq. Yds. for construction of Depot and workshop, rest of the land measuring 5809 Sq. Yds. has been used for constructing the approach road. Therefore, RSRTC is not liable to make payment of compensation in respect of land used for construction of approach road. It is, therefore, argued that Single Bench was not right in directing the RSRTC to make payment of compensation in respect of land used for construction of approach road also.
4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Kishori Devi is that learned Single Judge should have awarded interest at the rate of 12% in place of 6% per annum. Therefore, RSRTC be directed to pay the amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 12% in place of 6% per annum, as directed by Single Bench. So far as appeal filed by RSRTC is concerned, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that petitioner was entitled for compensation and learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, which calls for no interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal.
5. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of Single Bench and also the other documents available on record.
6. It appears that earlier the dispute was in respect of ownership of land in dispute; whether writ petitioner was owner or the Devasthan Department was the owner of the land in dispute. Earlier, the amount of compensation for land used for depot and workshop was remitted to Devasthan Department by RSRTC. Late Shri Girdhari Das Swami, husband of petitioner, filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the trial court against State of Rajasthan, Nagar Parishad, Sikar and RSRTC in the year 1984, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24th March, 1990 and plaintiff Girdhari Das Swami, husband of petitioner, was held to be owner of the land in dispute. The judgment of the trial court was challenged by State Government in first appeal, thereafter in second appeal, but both were dismissed. Thereafter, special leave petition filed by State Government was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14th July, 2003.
7. Learned counsel for RSRTC has not argued that writ petitioner is not the owner of the land in dispute. Therefore, this question is not required to be dealt with and decided in these appeals. The submission of learned counsel for RSRTC is that RSRTC is not required to pay compensation in respect of land used for construction of approach road. Their contention is that when approach road has been constructed then it is Nagar Nigam, who is responsible to make payment of compensation.
8. This point was thoroughly examined by Single Bench in the light of various documents available on record and thereafter Single Bench came to a conclusion that it is the RSRTC, who is responsible to make the payment of compensation in respect of land used for construction of approach road. Learned Single Judge observed that there was no need of any construction of approach road on the land in dispute, in case, the depot and workshop of RSRTC would not have been constructed/setup. Counsel for RSRTC has not disputed that road has been constructed by RSRTC and not by Nagar Nigam. The road is being used for the purpose of RSRTC. Single Bench has also observed that mere fact that the land vested in the Nagar Nigam, Sikar for the purpose of maintenance, the RSRTC is not absolved of its liability to make payment of compensation.
9. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find that Single Bench has rightly directed the RSRTC to make payment of amount of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. So far as, appeal filed by petitioner for enhancement of rate of interest is concerned, we find that matter relates to the year 1976, therefore, awarding rate of interest @ 6% per annum from the date the land was taken in possession by RSRTC cannot be said to be on lower side. The rate of interest awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and we do not find any force in the special appeal filed by petitioner-Smt. Kishori Devi.
11. In view of above discussion, we do not find any force in both the appeals and the same are, accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. Stay Application No.12305/2011 in SAW No.1612/2011 also stands dismissed.
12. Registry is directed to place on record a copy of this order in connected appeal.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ.
BKS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
B.K. SHRIVASTAVA PRIVATE SECRETAR