Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Kumar Patni vs State Of Raj And Ors on 26 August, 2017
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 625 / 2017
Ramesh Kumar Patni S/o Shri K.C. Patni, Village Bambala, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Housing, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The Dy. Commissioner, Zone-9, Jaipur Development Authority,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanchit Tamra, Adv. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 26/08/2017 Office has pointed out delay of about 11 days in filing of the appeal & in support thereof separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay u/S 5 of Limitation Act.
After taking note of the submissions made, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained duly supported by affidavit and deserves to be condoned.
The application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. Instant special appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt.10.01.2017.
At the outset we may notice that the acquisition proceedings of the subject land in question were initiated vide notification (2 of 4) [SAW-625/2017] published on 02.08.1983 for acquiring the land for the purpose of a housing scheme to be executed by the Rajasthan Housing Board. Looking to the urgency in the matter, a notification u/Sec. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.03.1984 and after issuing notice dt.23.05.1994, the possession alleged to have been taken by the Authorities on 11.06.1984 from the original khatedars of the land acquired and after service of notice U/Sec. 9(3) of the Act of 1953 read with Rule 11 of the Act final award, came to be passed on 22.08.1988. These proceedings came to be challenged by the appellant in S.B.C.W.P. No.3758/1988 and the ld. Single Judge of this Curt after taking note of the submissions made on merits, dismissed the writ petition vide order dt.14.07.2006 and we consider it appropriate to quote the extract of the order passed by the ld. Single Judge in the earlier proceedings dt.14.07.2006 as under:-
"It is not known as to how and under what circumstances the entries were made in the revenue records by the concerned authority in the name of the petitioner on 25.02.1986 much after the Notification U/Sec.17 (4) of the Act had been issued and possession had also been taken by the concerning acquiring authorities. The name of petitioner also finds place in the list of awardees in the award. Petitioner has not been able to explain as to why the Notifications U/Sec. 17 (4) issued on 19.03.1984 or even notice U/Sec. 9 (3) issued on 27.07.1987 have not been challenged by him at appropriate stage. Even the documents submitted by the petitioner makes a contradictory stand now been taken by the petitioner at the stage of hearing. The petitioner has pleaded total (3 of 4) [SAW-625/2017] ignorance of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner been working as officer in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, even the housing loan on the land in question has been sanctioned by the Corporation without verification in regard to acquisition proceedings already initiated long back. The malafide intention of the petitioner speak for itself.
After having carefully gone through the material on record, since acquisition has been made for the purpose of housing scheme and award has also been passed way back in October, 1988 and further petitioner not having come with clean hands before this court, in the facts and circumstances, no interference is called for in the writ petition."
It is not disputed that the order earlier passed by the ld. Single Judge dt.14.07.2006 in SBCWP No.3758/1988 filed at the instance of the present appellant has attained finality & from 2006 to 2015, no action has been taken by the appellant & at this stage he filed another writ petition invoking Sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and the bone of contention of the appellant before the ld. Single Judge was that physical possession of the subject land in question still has not been taken by the Authorities and the reason for which he approached this Court is that he has now being served with the notice u/Sec.72 of the JDA Act 1982 to remove encroachments over the subject land in question and that establishes his physical possession.
(4 of 4) [SAW-625/2017] The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the respondent took symbolic possession and physical possession of the subject land was still with him and that is the reason for which he served the notice u/Sec.72 of the JDA Act 1982 is without substance for the reason that the material record indicates that the possession has been taken by the Government of the subject land in question after the acquisition proceedings has attained finality and mere serving of notice u/Sec.72 of the JDA Act no adverse inference can be drawn of the appellant holding physical possession of the subject land in question and this what ld. Single Judge has considered in detail in the order impugned before us dt.10.01.2017.
We find no error in the order of the ld. Single Judge which call for our interference. Consequently, the instant special appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
A.Kumar/R.Vaishnav
17.