SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2442/15. Case: Jhutharam and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2442/15 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Nageshwara Rao, R.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocates and Pradeep Choudhary, Adv. and For Respondents: P.S. Narsimha, Addl. Solicitor General and Rajendra Prasad, AAG |
| Judges | Bela M. Trivedi, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 16, 18, 31, 31(2), 31, 32, 33, 34, 4; Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 90A; Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 212, 63(1)(iii); Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 24, 24(... |
| Judgement Date | October 15, 2015 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
-
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking declaration that the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act') in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 194 had lapsed in view of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, and the declaration that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A. Act') in respect of the said land had also lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013'). The petitioners have also sought directions against the respondents to pass orders in favour of the petitioners with regard to the conversion applications (Annex. 49 to 54) filed by them under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Act') and not to take any coercive measures for taking possession of the land in question from the petitioners. In the alternative, the petitioners have prayed to regularize the said land in compliance of the order dated 10.4.02 passed by the State Level Settlement Committee and to quash and set aside the orders dated 17.11.14 (Annex. 57 and 59) passed by the respondent No. 1-State of Rajasthan and the orders dated 20.11.14 (Annex. 56 and 58) passed by the respondent No. 2-JDA.
-
FACTUAL MATRIX
2(i) The short facts, as emerging from the record of the case, are that originally Khasra No. 194 having an area of 23 Bighas and 8 Biswas situated at Village Beed Khatipura, Jaipur was entered in the name of Dr. Gopal Singh in the year 1966-69. The said Dr. Gopal Singh sold out the said Khasra number to one Shri Manmohan Lal in the year 1971, in respect of which the mutation No. 16 dated 24.4.1971 was opened in the revenue records. The said Manmohan Lal thereafter sold the said land to the petitioner No. 1 Jhutha Ram and the petitioner No. 2 Shaitan Singh by executing the sale-deed dated 10.11.75, in respect of which mutation No. 77 dated 3.1.76 was opened in the revenue records. Thus the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 became the Khatedars of the said Khasra No. 194. The copies of Jamabandi reflecting the entries are annexed to the petition as Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. In the year 1976, the ULC Act having come into force in the State of Rajasthan with effect from 9.3.76, the petitioner No. 1 Jhutha Ram filled in the form under Section 6 of the ULC Act declaring his holdings including Khasra No. 194. According to the petitioners, the said form was filed by the petitioner No. 1 by way of abundant caution and thereafter he was not aware about any proceedings held by the competent authority under the ULC Act. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter were threatened to dispossess by the officers of the JDA somewhere in the month of September, 1991 and at that time they learnt that the competent authority under the ULC Act had proceeded ex-parte against them and the proceedings were pending for service of notices under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act as on 10.9.91. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter filed an appeal being No. 57/91 before the Divisional Commissioner on 18.12.91, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.3.93 (Annex. 6) on the ground of being barred by the law of limitation. The petitioner No. 1 on the same day i.e. on 29.3.93 filed SBCWP No. 2011/93 before the High Court challenging the very applicability of ULC Act to the said land. The said writ petition alongwith other writ petitions came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 26.4.97 (Annex. 11).
2(ii) It appears that pending the said proceedings under the ULC Act, the respondent-State initiated the acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act for acquiring the said land bearing Khasra No. 194, by publishing the notification on 23.10.91 under Section 4 thereof, and thereafter issuing declaration on 5.5.93 under Section 6 thereof. The award was also made on 27.5.95 which was approved by the State Government on 30.6.95 and declared on 3.7.95 (Annex. 12). The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 after the declaration of the award, challenged the acquisition proceedings by way of filing SBCWP No. 3235/95 on 17.7.95 on the ground that the said acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of erstwhile Khatedar Shri Manmohan Lal and therefore the said petitioners could not know the factum of acquisition proceedings. The said petition was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 24.4.97 (Annex. 17), against which the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred the DB Special Appeal No. 1398/97. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 26.9.2000 (Annex. 18). The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 therefore preferred the Special Leave Petition being No. 21538/2000 before the Supreme Court. The said SLP was admitted by the Supreme Court on 12.1.2001, however was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as per the order dated 8.5.02 (Annex. 22 and 23).
2(iii) It appears that in the meantime the State Level Settlement Committee was constituted by the State Government for settling the disputes between the JDA and other persons under Section 83-A of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the JDA Act'). The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith Khatedars of adjoining Khasra Nos. 193 and 193/248 therefore filed an application before the said Committee which came to be registered as the application No. 26/02. The Settlement Committee vide the order dated 10.4.2002 (Annex. 21) directed that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 193, 193/248 and 194 be regularized as per the State Govt. Circular dated 26.5.2000, after obtaining from the petitioners 25% of the reserved price fixed for the Chitrakoot Scheme or the relevant area. The said petitioners No. 1 and 2 were also directed to withdraw the pending cases from the courts and the JDA was directed to issue demand notices for the said amount within three weeks of the production of orders of withdrawal of the petitions by the petitioners. The petitioners were also directed to deposit the amount of demand notice that may be issued by the JDA, within three weeks of the receipt of the demand notices. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on having withdrawn the SLP, the respondent-JDA issued notices dated 18.5.02 making demand of Rs. 3,81,23,291.25/- for the regularization of the land in question of the petitioners. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 deposited 1,45,05,000/- through various challans with the JDA. According to the petitioners, the JDA thereafter did not accept the said amount of the demand notices on one pretext or the other.
2(iv) It is pertinent to note that after passing of the order dated 10.4.02 by the Settlement Committee, one PIL being No. 2658/03 was filed before this court, challenging the constitution of the said committee. The court in the said PIL had orally observed that all the decisions of the State Level Settlement Committee be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the said PIL. According to the petitioners the JDA did not accept the said remaining amount of the demand notices in view of the oral order passed by the court in the said PIL. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 thereafter had approached the JDA showing their willingness to deposit the remaining amount and therefore the erstwhile Commissioner of the JDA had written the letter dated 23.5.07 (Annex. 28), to the Dy. Secretary, UDH seeking permission from the State Government to regularize the land of the said petitioners in the light of the circulars dated 26.5.2000 and 16.5.02 issued by the State Government. The State Government in response to the said letter accorded the permission to the JDA vide letter dated 21.8.07 (Annex. 29) to regularize the land bearing Khasra No. 194 of the Khatedars in compliance of the orders passed by the State Level Settlement Committee and also directed that the lay-out plan of the scheme be released as per rules, after obtaining the payment of the remaining amount of the demand notice dated 18.5.02 with interest. According to the petitioners, the JDA did not accept the remaining amount even after the said letter of the State Government. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter made a representation to the UDH Minister on 13.8.13 (Annex. 31) requesting him to regularize the land of the petitioners in compliance of the order of the Settlement Committee dated 10.4.02 and to place the matter before the empowered committee. The said matter remained pending before the State Government.
2(v) According to the petitioners, the said Khasra No. 194 having khatedari rights of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was subsequently partitioned and accordingly Khasra No. 194/1 having an area of 11 Bighas 10 Biswas was entered in the name of the petitioner No. 1 Jhutharam, Khasra No. 194/2 having an area of 8 Biswas was kept in the joint possession of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the Khasra No. 194/3 having an area of 11 Bighas 10 Biswas was entered in the name of the petitioner No. 2 Shaitan Singh. On 21.8.14, the petitioner No. 2 Shaitan Singh sold out 6 Bighas 14 Biswas out of Khasra No. 194/3 and 4 biswas of Khasra No. 194/2 (total area of 6 Bighas & 18 Biswas) to M/s. United Land Developers i.e. the petitioner No. 3 vide the registered sale-deed dated 21.8.14 and supplementary amended deed dated 1.9.14 (Annex. 35 & 36 respectively). Similarly the petitioner No. 1 Jhutharam sold out 6 Bighas 9 Biswas out of Khasra No. 194/1 and 0.1 Biswas out of Khasra No. 194/2 (Total 6 Bighas 10 Biswas) to M/s. United Land Developers i.e. petitioner No. 3 vide the registered sale-deed dated 25.8.14 (Annex. 37). The said petitioner No. 3 M/s. United Land Developers sold out different parts of the said land purchased by it, to the other petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 by executing separate sale deeds. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial