Partly allowed

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. v. State Revenu Department Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2016CW/13348/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging Board of Revenue order which denied restoration of land after High Court quashed ceiling proceedings. Court held compensation not proper for quashed proceedings and ordered State to allot alternative land to petitioners while recognizing their possession.

What did the court decide?

Substitute Board order; maintain petitioners' possession; direct State to allot matching alternate land to landless private respondents.

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. Vs State Revenu Department Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13337/2012

¶5

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶6

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶7

3 Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4 Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶8

5 Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶9

6 Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶10

7 Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain,

¶11

All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶12

…...Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶15

2 The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer. 3 The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶16

¶17

4 Shri Surajmal son of Shri Gopilal, By caste Bairwa, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan).

¶18

….. Non- Petitioners

¶19

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13334/2012

¶20

Smt. Dakha bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased).

¶21

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram.

¶22

Lokesh , Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram.

¶23

Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala.

¶24

Kavita aged 23 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram.

¶25

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram.

¶26

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

…….Petitioners

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶31

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶32

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶33

Shri Sitaram son of Shri Madho, Bairwa by caste, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶34

…...Non- Petitioners

¶35

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13335/2012

¶36

Smt . Dakha bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶37

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶38

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶39

Kavita aged 23 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram

¶40

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶41

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain,

¶42

All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota

(Rajasthan)

……. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶48

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶49

3.The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶50

Shri Shankar son of Shri Heera, Bairwa by caste, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶51

….. Non-Petitioners

¶52

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13336/2012

¶53

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶54

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶55

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶56

Kavita aged 23 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram

¶57

¶58

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶59

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Mina by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶60

…….. Petitioners

¶61

Versus

¶62

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶63

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶64

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶65

Shri Gopal son of Late Shri Gangaram

¶66

Shri Jagannath son of Late Shri Gangaram

¶67

Shri Bihari Lal son of Late Shri Gangaram (Sr. No. 4 to 6 ) All by caste Mehar, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶68

…….Non-Petitioners

¶69

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13338/2012

¶70

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain

¶71

¶72

(Since Deceased)

¶73

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶74

3.Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4.Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶75

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶76

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶77

7 Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶78

….. Petitioners

¶79

Versus

¶80

.1 The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶81

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶82

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶83

Shri Banshi Lal son of Shri Kanha, Mehar by caste, Resident of village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipal da, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶84

¶85

…..Non-Petitioners

¶86

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13339/2012

¶87

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶88

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶89

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶90

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶91

Sonu aged 19 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram

¶92

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶93

…..Petitioners

¶94

Versus

¶95

1 The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue , Jaipur.

¶96

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶97

3.The State Government of Rajasthan through

¶98

¶99

the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶100

4.Shri Jagannath son of Shri Gangaram, Mehar by caste, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶101

…...Non-Petitioners

¶102

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13340/2012

¶103

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶104

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years , widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶105

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶106

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶107

6.Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶108

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶109

…….Petitioners

¶110

Versus

¶111

The State of Rajasthan through the

¶112

¶113

Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue , Jaipur.

¶114

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶115

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶116

Smt. Hussain bano wife of Hazi Wali Mohd., By caste Muslim, Resident of Village Khatoli, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶117

…...Non- Petitioners

¶118

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13341/2012

¶119

Smt. Dakha Bai Widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶120

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶121

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶122

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶123

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶124

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain,

¶125

All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota

(Rajasthan)

….Petitioners

Versus

1 The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue , Jaipur.

¶131

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. 3.The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶132

Shri Shankar Lal son of Shri Sriram, Bairwa by caste, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶133

…...Non-Petitioners

¶134

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13342/2012

¶135

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶136

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶137

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶138

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶139

¶140

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Sita Ram

¶141

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste , Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶142

…...Petitioners

¶143

Versus

¶144

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue , Jaipur.

¶145

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶146

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶147

Shri Gopal son of Shri Ganga Ram, Mehar by caste, Resident of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶148

…..Non-Petitioners

¶149

(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13343/2012

¶150

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶151

Suraj. Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶152

Lokesh , Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita

¶153

¶154

Ram

¶155

4.Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶156

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶157

Sonu aged 19 years daughgter of Shri Sita Ram

¶158

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶159

…..Petitioners

¶160

Versus

¶161

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue , Jaipur.

¶162

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. 3. The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶163

Shri Mangilal son of Late Shri Jagannath

¶164

Shri Phoolchand son of Late Shri Jagannath

¶165

Shri Ramesh Chand son of Late Shri Jagannath

¶166

(Sr. No.4 to 6) All by caste Bairwa, Resident of Village jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶167

¶168

…..Non-Petitioners

¶169

(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13344/2012

¶170

Smt. Dakha Bai Widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶171

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶172

Lokesh , Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram

¶173

Nitesh , Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶174

Kavita aged 23 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram

¶175

Sonu aged 19 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram

¶176

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶177

….Petitioners

¶178

Versus

¶179

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶180

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan ,

¶181

¶182

Ajmer.

¶183

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶184

Smt. Gulab Bai wife of Late Shri Nenu Ram

¶185

Shri Siyaram son of Late Shri Nenu Ram

¶186

Shri Rampal son of Late Shri Nenu Ram

¶187

(Sr. No. 4 to 6 ) All by caste Bairwa, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶188

…...Non-Petitioners

¶189

(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13345/2012

¶190

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶191

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶192

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram

¶193

Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶194

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶195

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶196

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

…...Petitioners

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶201

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶202

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶203

Shri Ganeshram son of Shri Bishna, By caste Bairwa, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶204

…..Non- Petitioners

¶205

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13346/2012

¶206

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶207

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶208

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶209

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶210

¶211

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶212

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Resident of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶213

…...Petitioners

¶214

Versus

¶215

The State of Rajasthan through the principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue , Jaipur.

¶216

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. 3. The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶217

Shri Chhotulal son of Shri Kanaram, Mehar by caste, Resident of village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipal da, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶218

…….Non-Petitioners

¶219

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2012

¶220

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶221

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶222

Lokesh , Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita

¶223

¶224

Ram

¶225

Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj kala 5. Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶226

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶227

Radhey Shyam son of shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Resident of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶228

…….. Petitioners

¶229

Versus

¶230

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶231

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶232

3.The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶233

4.Shri Bhagirath son of Shri Bhawana, Bairwa by caste, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶234

…..Non-Petitioners

¶235

¶236

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13348/2012

¶237

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶238

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶239

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh , Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala

¶240

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶241

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶242

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Resident of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶243

…...Petitioners

¶244

Versus

¶245

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶246

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶247

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶248

Smt. Prem Bai Wife of Late Shri Gangadhar

¶249

¶250

Shri Mukesh son of Late Shri Gangadhar

¶251

Shri Praveen son of Late Shri Gangadhar

¶252

Shri Manju son of Late Shri Gangadhar ( Sr. No. 4 to 7) All by caste Bairwa, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District kota (Rajasthan)

¶253

….Non-Petitioners

¶254

(16) S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 13349/2012

¶255

Smt. Dakha Bai widow of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶256

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶257

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram

¶258

Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj Kala 5. Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶259

Sonu aged 19 years daughters of Shri Sita Ram

¶260

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain, All Minas by caste, Resident of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

…...Petitioners

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue ,Jaipur.

¶265

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶266

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶267

Shri Ram Kumar son of Shri Prabhulal, By caste Bairwa, Resident of Village Jawaharpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶268

…...Non-Petitioners

¶269

(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13473/2012

¶270

Smt. Dakha Bai window of Shri Ram Narain (Since Deceased)

¶271

Suraj Kala, aged 40 years, widow of Shri Sita Ram

¶272

Lokesh, Aged 21 years son of Shri Sita Ram 4. Nitesh, Aged 16 years son of Shri Sita Ram, through his mother Smt. Suraj kala

¶273

Kavita aged 23 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶274

Sonu aged 19 years daughter of Shri Sita Ram

¶275

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ram Narain,

¶276

All Minas by caste, Residents of Village Jorawarpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District kota

(Rajasthan)

…….Petitioners

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Jaipur.

¶282

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan , Ajmer.

¶283

The State Government of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Pipalda.

¶284

Shri Panna Son of Shri Bherulal, Dhakar by caste, Resident of village Sobhagpura, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶285

…..Non- Petitioners

¶286

Date of Order : 03.11.2016

¶287

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶288

Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr. Timan Singh, for the petitioners.

¶289

Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl. Govt. Counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya with Mr. Rohit Saini, for the respondents.

¶290

BY THE COURT

¶291

With consent of the parties, all the writ petitions have been heard finally and

¶292

¶293

are decided by the common order.

¶294

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that agricultural ceiling proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. 76.78 standard acres of land was declared surplus, thus ordered to be acquired. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order dated 16.5.1975. The appeal, therein, was dismissed while maintaining the order for acquisition of land measuring 76.78 standard acres. The petitioners, thereupon, preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, however, it was also dismissed vide order dated 14.5.1979. The petitioners, preferred Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. The Special Appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 3.9.1979. The petitioners, thereupon, approached this court by maintaining DB CWP No.1713/1980. It was allowed vide order dated 3.1.1991. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 3.9.1979 was set aside with remand of the case.

¶295

The Board of Revenue partly allowed the appeal and 47.84 standard acres was found surplus. The petitioners, thereupon,

¶296

¶297

preferred SB Civil writ petition bearing No.545/1996 for the land measuring 47.84 standard acres. The writ petition was, thereupon, allowed vide order dated 17.2.2006. The ceiling proceeding were held to be illegal. The petitioners approached the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) for recording the land in their name on quashing of the ceiling proceedings.

¶298

It is submitted that the possession of land was given to the petitioners followed by entering their name in the revenue record. The SDO Court, accordingly, allowed the application in favour of the petitioners, however, it was made clear that out of 47.84 standard acres of land, the land utilised for road, canal and public way would be adjusted.

¶299

An appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority by those who were allotted the same land. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioners are having right to get restoration of land on setting aside of ceiling proceedings. A revision was thereupon preferred by the non-petitioners before the Board of Revenue and it has been

¶300

¶301

allowed. It is held that allotment of land having been made in favour of the nonpetitioners thus, petitioners be allowed compensation or be given alternative land. It is in ignorance of the fact that the petitions have already restored in the disputed land and if there was allotment in favour of the non-petitioners, direction could have been to allow allotment of land to them at other place. A direction for payment of compensation or to allow alternative land is not proper after quashing of the land ceiling proceedings. The High Court having quashed the ceiling proceedings and the judgment of the High Court not been challenged further, results in restoration of the land in favour of the petitioners, that too, only 47.87 standard acres of land. The prayer is, accordingly, made to set aside the order of Board of Revenue and the possession of the petitioners may be maintained. The nonpetitioners can appropriately be allotted land elsewhere.

¶302

Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the petitions. The fact about the litigation between the parties has not been

¶303

¶304

disputed. It is submitted that the ceiling proceedings have been finally decided in favour of the petitioners but, before that, the land was allotted to the privaterespondents. In the light of the aforesaid, the Board of Revenue has rightly given direction for allotment of land to the petitioners at other place or to pay compensation. In view of above, this court may not interfere in the order aforesaid.

¶305

Learned counsel appearing for privaterespondents has further submitted that if the land in dispute has already been restored in favour of the petitioners, a direction may be given to the State Government to allot alternative land to the petitioners, being landless persons.

¶306

Learned counsel appearing for the Government submits that as per the direction of the Board of Revenue, they need to allot alternative land to the petitioners or to pay compensation thus, either way, the State Government need to allot alternative land to either of the parties or to pay compensation. Hence, it would be appropriate that court may issue appropriate direction

¶307

¶308

in the facts and circumstances of the case balancing the equities between the parties.

¶309

I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶310

The facts of the case show that the ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners were set aside finally by the High Court. Initially, 76.78 standard acres of land was declared surplus. However, on the remand of the case to the Board of Revenue, it was found to be 47.84 standard acres of land. The ceiling proceedings were, however, set aside by the High Court and as a consequence of which, petitioners became entitled to get restoration of land. It is alleged to have been restored in their favour. It is by giving possession as well as opening mutation.

¶311

The court of SDO as well as Revenue Appellate Authority has passed a detailed order for restoration of land in favour of the petitioners. The Board of Revenue has interfered in the order though recognised right of the petitioners to get the land but has not allowed restoration of land. It is

¶312

¶313

in ignorance of the fact that ceiling proceedings have been set aside. The consequences to follow and which is of restoration of the land. A direction to pay compensation in lieu of the land cannot be given on quashing of the ceiling proceedings. The land cannot be treated to have been acquired so as to attract compensation.

¶314

I find that there was failure of the State Government while contesting the writ petition against the ceiling proceedings as they did not bring it to the notice of the High Court that land in dispute has already been allotted to others, otherwise, the High Court itself would have passed appropriate orders at that stage itself.

¶315

In any case, Board of Revenue has also recognised the right of the petitioners, therefore, direction has been given either to allot matching land elsewhere or to pay compensation. The direction to pay compensation is not proper in view of the discussion made above and it is to be paid when land is acquired and not otherwise.

¶316

¶317

Learned counsel appearing for the State Government is fair enough to state that as per the order of the Board of Revenue also, the State Government need to allot the alternative land to the petitioners if the compensation cannot be given as per the observation of this court. The Government can allot alternative land either to the petitioners or to the private-respondents. The private-respondents have no objection if they are allotted alternative land so as to avoid dispute. If the matching land is to be allotted to the petitioners, it would be in an area of 47.84 standard acres whereas, if they are given possession in the existing land then it would be less than the above because elimination of the land used for road, canal and public has been allowed by the Revenue Courts. It would be appropriate to substantiate the direction of the Board of Revenue to the extent of a direction to the State Government allot of alternative land to the petitioners. It should be for the private-respondents who were allotted land, as landless persons.

¶318

Accordingly, the order of the Board of Revenue is substituted with a direction that

¶319

¶320

while maintaining the possession of restoration of land of the petitioners, the landless persons i.e. the privaterespondents be allotted matching land elsewhere and, if possible, nearby to the present place. The direction aforesaid is given for the ends of justice and to balance the equities. A landless person cannot be deprived from the land already allotted but, in the peculiarity of the case, direction for allotment of other land has been given on an agreement by learned counsel for private-respondents. The allotment of land belonging to the petitioners during pendency of the litigation was not proper in the hands of the State Government. The State Government should have allotted land to the landless persons, which is not free from encumbrances and litigation and, if that would have been done, the direction of the nature given by this court, would not have been required.

¶321

With the direction aforesaid, all the writ petitions are partly allowed. The compliance of the order of this court would be made by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of

¶322

¶323

receipt of copy of this order. The direction aforesaid has been given because as per the order of the Board of Revenue, petitioner would get 47.84 Standard Acres of land whereas restoration is of lessor land, thus it would be beneficial to the State Government.

¶324

Sunita/21-37

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. v. State Revenu Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. v. State Revenu Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State P H E Dors

Ever Green Innovative Solutions P Ltd. Vs Chairman Riico Jaipur

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. Vs State Revenu Department Ors.

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. Vs State Revenu Department Ors.

Smt Dakha Bai and Ors. Vs State Revenu Department Ors.