Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petition has been resisted by respondents by filing the reply giving details about the orders passed and the actions taken by the authorities under the ULC Act, as also the orders passed by the High Court in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioners. It has been further contended that the proceedings under the ULC Act had attained finality, and the vacant lands out of the said khasra numbers of the petitioners had already vested in the Government in the year 1984. According to the respondents when the petitioners did not comply with the orders passed under sub-section 5 of Section 10 of the ULC Act, the competent authority had taken over the possession of the vacant land after using necessary force on 6.12.86 and the memos-'Fard' were also prepared in this regard. The said lands thereafter were mutated in favour of the JDA on 17.8.91. It is further contended that the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act were challenged by the petitioners by filing the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, and the petitioners had also filed the petitions before the High Court on the ground that the provisions of the ULC Act were not applicable to the said lands. However, the said appeals before the Divisional Commissioner and the writ petitions filed before the High Court having been dismissed and the special appeals filed before the Division Bench of this court also having been dismissed, the proceedings under the ULC Act had attained the finality. According to the respondents, prior to the date 7.10.99 on which the ULC Act was repealed, the lands in question had already vested in the State Government and the possession of the same was also handed over by the competent authority to the JDA on 6.12.86. The cheques for compensation were also issued to the petitioners, and therefore there was no question of petitioners' challenging the said proceedings of the ULC Act before the Settlement Committee. According to the respondents, the petitioners had suppressed the material facts before the Settlement Committee, and the Settlement Committee also did not notice that the proceedings under the ULC Act had already attained finality. Since the order of Settlement Committee was illegal and void ab initio, and since the petitioners themselves did not comply with the directions given in the said order, the question of implementation of the said decision after so many years did not arise. It is contended that there was interse dispute going on between the petitioners as per the record of the JDA and the petitioners had not come with clean hands. Under the circumstances, the respondent-JDA was well within its rights to protect its property vested in it by issuing the notices under Section 34-A and Section 72 of the JDA Act. It is also contended that the entire case was built up by the petitioners on the concealment of facts and even otherwise, the alternative statutory remedy being available to the petitioners under Section 83 of the JDA Act, the present petition deserved to be dismissed.

04/01/84 The competent authority under the ULC Act issued notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act with respect to Khasra No. 193. 28/1/84 The competent authority issued notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act with respect to Khasra No. 193/248. 31/8/1984 The competent authority ordered for issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.
07/02/85 Order under Section 10(6) was passed for taking forcible possession of Khasra No. 193/248.
06/12/86 'Fard' was prepared by the competent authority taking forcible possession of Khasra No. 193 and 193/248 stating therein that the possession of the said lands was handed over to the Tehsildar, JDA. 17/1/87 The Addl. Secretary, JDA wrote a letter to Land Settlement Commissioner to make mutation entries in favour of JDA with respect to lands in question. 16/3/91 The respondents issued cheques in favour of the petitioners for compensation, however the said cheques were not encashed by the petitioners. 07/09/91 The Tehsildar, JDA wrote a letter to Patwari, Heerapura, asking him to make necessary changes in mutation register in favour of JDA with respect to lands in question. 23/9/91 The petitioners allegedly came to know about the proceedings under the ULC Act for the first time, when the respondents allegedly with the police force went to the site of the subject lands to take possession of the same. 04/10/91 The petitioners filed appeals being No. 54/91 and 55/91 before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 33(1) of the ULC Act. 15/10/91 The Divisional Commissioner passed the order for maintaining status-quo in the said appeals. 29/3/93 Both the appeals being NO. 54/91 and 55/91 came to be dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on the ground of delay. 29/3/93 The petitioners filed SBCWP NO. 2008/93 and 2009/93 before the High Court challenging the applicability of the ULC Act to the subject lands. 06/04/93 The High Court passed the order in the said petitions directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands. 26/4/97 The Single Bench of the High Court dismissed both the petitions by its common order.

6(ii) The learned counsel Mr. Kuhad pressing into service various provisions of the ULC Act, more particularly, Section 10 elaborately submitted that the notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act had to be issued and served on the person who was in possession of the land. Such notice had to be issued by the competent authority directing delivery of possession either to the State Government or to a person authorised by the State Government. The provisions contained in Section 10(6) of the ULC Act would come into play only if the person had refused or failed to comply with the order made under sub-section 5 of the said Section. According to him, a valid notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was neither issued to nor served upon the petitioners and therefore the question of refusal to handover the possession did not arise and under the circumstances, the authority under the Act could not have invoked Section 10(6) of the ULC Act. The said provisions under Section 10(5) and 10(6) being mandatory in nature, the proceedings under the ULC Act were inchoate and never had the effect of divesting the petitioners of possession of the said lands. Mr. Kuhad has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC, 280 to submit that the provisions of Section 10 of the ULC Act were mandatory in nature.

6(iii) Referring to the various orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act and the orders passed by this court, Mr. Kuhad submitted that the competent authority had passed the orders without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore they were not aware about the notifications issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act in respect of the lands in question and the petitioners came to know about the said orders only in the year 1991, when the respondents threatened the petitioners to dispossess them. The petitioners thereafter filed the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 33(1) of the ULC Act. He further submitted that the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the said appeals on the ground of delay alone. However, since the entire proceedings initiated under the ULC Act were without jurisdiction, the petitioners had filed the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the provisions of the ULC Act did not apply to the subject lands. He further submitted that pending the proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the dispute was referred to the Settlement Committee constituted under Section 83-A of the said Act and the Settlement Committee had also given the finding that the lands in question being outside the Jaipur urban agglomeration at the time of coming into the force of ULC act, the said lands were outside the purview of the ULC Act. He further submitted that the said decision of the Settlement Committee was accepted and acted upon by the parties and accordingly the respondent No.2 had also raised demand for the regularisation of the lands in question and the petitioners had deposited about Rs. 1.45 crores. Pressing into service Sub-section (4) of Section 83-A of the JDA Act, Mr. Kuhad has submitted that the decision of the Settlement Committee was binding on the authority.