The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Pujari challenging the acquisition of temple land for highway broadening, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as the interested landowners had already accepted compensation.
Writ petition dismissed; status-quo interim order vacated; application for impleadment dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2698/2007 Bhanwar Lal Vaishnav Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Date of Order: 22.07.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Ms. Gayatri Rathore, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Soni, for respondent No.1 Mr. Arnav Singh, for respondent No.3. Mr. Mukesh Dudi on behalf of Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Dy.G.C., for the respondent-UOI.
The petitioner, stating himself to be a ' Pujari' of the temple situated on Khasra No.398/1 and 398/2, has approached this Court questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the land acquired for broadening of National Highway No.11, praying for the following relief(s):
"(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or directions the notification dated 14.09.2006 (Annex-6), so far as it relates to acquisition of Khasra No.398/1 and 398/2 may kindly be quashed and set aside and same be declared ultra vires to the provisions of law.
(ii) any other appropriate writ, order or directions which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are; that to broaden the National Highway No.11, land was acquired in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the National
2
Highways Act, 1956, (for short, 'the Act of 1956'), which is included in Khasra No. 398/1 and 398/2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that though the petitioner- Pujari of the temple though is not a khatedar of the land in dispute but once the competent authority made an enquiry and recommended for deacquisition of the subject land; the respondents are not entitled to decline the claim of the petitioner for de-acquiring the land.
On being queried as to the locus-standi of the petitioner, learned counsel asserted that the petitioner being ' Pujari' of the temple is an interested person. In support of her submissions, reliance is placed on the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Yunus V/s Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur & Ors(72): RLR 2000(1) 245.
Learned counsel would further submit that an application has also been moved by the Khatedar-Shri Mahendra Kumar Meena, whose name appeared in the record of rights of the land involved herein.
Per contra ; questioning the very maintainability of the writ application, Mr. Vikas Soni & Mr. Arnav Singh, appearing for respondent No.1 and 3 respectively, asserted that the petitioner has no locus-standi to question the proceedings
3
under the Act of 1956. It is further contended that the Khatedars of land have already accepted the compensation as would be reflected from document Annexure-R-3/8. At serial No.426 names of Shri Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai and Smt. Kamla W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Meena, have been detailed out and they have been awarded compensation for the land acquired to the tune of Rs.19,77,841/- (Rupees Nineteen lacs seventy seven thousand eight hundred forty one only).
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.
Indisputably, the petitioner is not a Khatedar of the land in dispute that was acquired for broadening the National Highway No.11. That apart, the Khatedars of the land who were interested persons have already received the compensation and have not approached this Court.
The interim application (32211/2016) preferred on behalf of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Meena with a prayer for his impleadment in the writ proceedings as petitioner, cannot be entertained for he did not raise any grievance with reference to the proceedings conducted and concluded. Be that as it may, if Shri Mahendra Kumar Meena is at all aggrieved, he would be free to avail of the legal remedy in accordance with law.
4
For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
The interim order of status-quo stands vacated.
Application (32211/2016) preferred on behalf of Mr.
Mahendra Kumar Meena for impleadment is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.
Pcg/58
2 issues framed by the court
whether a Pujari of a temple situated on acquired land has locus standi to challenge the broadening of a National Highway affecting that land when the interested Khatedars have accepted compensation.
whether a writ petition questioning land acquisition is maintainable when the actual owners of the land have not approached the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammed Yunus vs. Urban Improvement Trust, JodhpurReferred¶17
Mohammed Yunus V/s Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur & Ors(72): RLR 2000(1) 245
Bhanwar Lal Vaishnav
The Union of India
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
