Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal Nos. 7254 of 2003 and 853 of 2013. Case: The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Jaipur and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 6 Cited in 12 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 7254 of 2003 and 853 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Dhurv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Amit Lubhaya and Pragati Neekhra, Advs. and For Respondents: P.S. Patwalia, Rakesh Dwivedi and M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advs., Ajay Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, Shibashish Mishra, Sanskriti Pathak, P.V. Yogeswaran, R. Gopalakrishnan, Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena, Bushra Parveen, A...
JudgesB.S. Chauhan and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
IssueRajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Sections 4, 4(1), 6; Rajasthan Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1976; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(22); Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48; Constitution of India - Article 14
Citation2013 (III) AD 29 (SC), AIR 2013 SC 1226, 2013 (2) CDR 465 (SC), JT 2013 (3) SC 1, 2013 (5) MahLJ 61, 2013 (2) SCALE 434, 2013 (5) SCC 427
Judgement DateFebruary 12, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

B.S. Chauhan, J.

  1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in Civil Writ Petition No. 454 of 1993, by which the High Court has issued directions to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (in short 'RIICO'), the Appellant herein, to release the land in dispute from land acquisition in favour of Respondent No. 1 - housing society (hereinafter referred to as 'the society').

  2. As both the appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment, for convenience, Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2003 is taken to be the leading case. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

    1. That, a huge area of land admeasuring 607 Bighas and 5 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of villages Durgapura, Jhalan Chod, Sanganer and Dhol-ka-Bad in District Jaipur, including the suit land measuring about 17 Bighas and 9 Biswas in village Durgapura stood notified Under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 18.7.1979, for a public purpose i.e. industrial development, to be executed by the RIICO.

    2. The Respondent society claims to have entered into an agreement to sell with the Khatedars of the suit land on 21.7.1981.

    3. Declaration Under Section 6 of the Act was made on 22.6.1982 for the land admeasuring 591 Bighas and 17 Biswas. After meeting all requisite statutory requirements contained in the Act, possession of the land, including the land in dispute was taken by the Government and was subsequently handed over to RIICO, on 18.10.1982 and 17.11.1983. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land of the Khatedars, and made an award on 14.5.1984. Vide allotment letter dated 10.3.1988, RIICO, made allotment of land admeasuring 105 acres of the land, out of the total acquired land measuring 591 Bighas, to Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd., a Private Ltd. Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'), Respondent No. 37, to facilitate the establishment of a Gem Industrial Estate for the manufacturing of Gem stones. This piece of land included within it, the land which was subject matter of an agreement to sell between the Respondent society and the original khatedars.

    4. Acquisition proceedings emanating from the Section 4 Notification dated 18.7.1979, were challenged by the Respondent society, as well as by the khatedars jointly in 1989, by filing of Writ Petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. A lease deed was executed by Appellant-RIICO in favour of the company-Respondent No. 37 in relation to 105 acres of land on 22.5.1989, including the land in question, which is comprised of Khasra Nos. 226 to 230 is village Durgapura. The aforementioned writ petitions filed by the Respondent society and the original khatedars, challenging the land acquisition proceedings stood dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, vide judgment and order dated 21.8.1990 passed by the High Court.

    5. Aggrieved, the Respondent society and one khatedar filed SLPs before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 21.8.1990. This Court vide order dated 9.9.1992 dismissed the said SLPs, however, while doing so, the Court made an observation that the dismissal of the said SLPs, would not operate as res-judicata if the society approaches the court for release of their land on the ground that lands owned by similar set of individuals or institutions, if any, has been released from acquisition. Such a direction was issued in view of the submissions made by the Respondent society, stating that allotment of the said land in favour of the Company had been made fraudulently.

    6. In view thereof, the society filed a Writ Petition No. 454 of 1993 praying for release of the land admeasuring 17 Bighas and 9 Biswas in Khasra Nos. 226 to 230, in revenue estate of village Durgapura or in the alternative, for the allotment of equivalent suitable land, and also for the cancellation of the allotment of 105 acres of land in favour of the Company. The writ petition was contested by the Appellants on the grounds that the Respondent society had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings which had attained finality upto this Court; the transfer of land by the khatedars to the Respondent society was void; the Respondent society could not claim parity with other persons/societies, whose land stood released for bonafide reasons on good grounds. The High Court heard the said writ petition alongwith another writ petition that had been filed by the Company, which will be dealt with separately. During the pendency of the writ petition, certain other developments took place, that is, the allotment of land made in favour of the Company, was cancelled by the Appellant vide order dated 1.10.1996, and possession of the same was taken over from it on 3.10.1996.

    7. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 30.7.2002, thereby releasing land admeasuring 17 Bighas and 9 Biswas in favour of the Respondent society.

    Hence, this appeal.

  3. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-RIICO, and Shri Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan, have submitted that challenge to the acquisition proceedings emanating from the Section 4 Notification dated 18.7.1979 had attained finality upto this Court. However, this Court vide order dated 9.9.1999 had granted very limited relief to the Respondent-society, to the extent that it could approach the court for release of its land only on the ground of discrimination qua other tenure holders, whose land stood released and that the dismissal of the SLP would not operate as res-judicata. The society had not made any representation before the filing of the first or the second writ petition, before any appropriate authority for release of the said land, nor had it raised issue with respect to any form of discrimination suffered by it. The High Court also did not consider the case on the basis of any ground of discrimination whatsoever, rather made a bald observation, stating that as the land of the other tenure holders had been released, the society too, was entitled for similar relief. Such an order is not justified for the reason that court did not compare the facts of two sets of the parties.

    Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality or fraud. Moreover, it is to be established that discrimination was made cautiously. The agreement to sell dated 21.7.1981 in favour of the Respondent-society did not create any title in favour of the society. Furthermore, any sale subsequent to a Section 4 Notification with respect to the said land, is void. An agreement to sell, or to execute any transfer of such land is barred by the Rajasthan Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Act 1976'). At the most, the High Court could have directed consideration of the representation of the society, if there was any, but it most certainly could not have issued direction to release the said land itself. The Society had approached the High Court, Jodhpur (main seat) though, petition could be filed only before the Jaipur Bench as the suit land situate at Jaipur and all relevant orders/notifications were issued at Jaipur. Thus, the present appeals deserve to be allowed.

  4. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - society and its members, has submitted that a representation was in fact made by the society, but the same was not considered by the State Government, and that the award made in respect of the land itself, clearly revealed that some land was released by the government, in favour of various persons and institutions. The Respondent society had therefore, been discriminated against, by the State authorities. The Respondent-society is entitled for the relief on the basis of the Government Orders, (hereinafter referred to as G. Os.) provided for release of the land of Group Housing Societies, if under acquisition. Technical issue must not be entertained by this Court, as the second writ petition has been filed under the liberty granted by this Court. Thus, the present appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

  5. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Company, Respondent No. 37, has submitted that the High Court has directed to release the land in favour of the Respondent - society, from the land which was allotted to the Company, and that Company has no objection to the order passed by the High Court, releasing a particular piece of land in favour of the society. Thus, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

  6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

    It is a settled legal proposition that acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage. In the instant case, the earlier writ petition filed by the society and the khatedars jointly, was dismissed by the High Court only on the ground of delay. This Court upheld the said judgment and order, while granting the said parties liberty to challenge the acquisition afresh, on the ground of discrimination alone.

  7. There can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 Notification in respect of the land, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, and can only claim compensation as the sale transaction in such a situation is Void qua the Government. Any such encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer of the land in question, that is made after the issuance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
12 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT