Allowed

Kumari Kanta Chouhdary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2022SAW/336/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that the District Collector, not the Land Acquisition Officer or Sub-Divisional Officer, is the appropriate government under Section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The court quashed the SDO's order rejecting objections and remanded the matter for proper procedure.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the SDO and the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the Single Bench were quashed and remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with Section 15 of the Act within two

Kumari Kanta Chouhdary Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 6)

¶2

[SAW-336/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶4

JODHPUR

¶5

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 336/2021

¶6

Kumari Kanta Chouhdary D/o Late Shri Babula Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Silari Road Tower, Pipad City, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶7

Ramdin S/o Lumba Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gidavat Nagar, Pipad Shehar, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶8

Khiynaram S/o Lumba Ram, Aged About 48 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Gidavat Nagar, Pipad Shehar, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶9

Shankarlal S/o Madha Ram, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Kurecha Tehsil, Pipad Shehar, District Jodhpur.

¶10

Jagdish S/o Pusa Ram, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Cholwaton Ki Badi, Pipad Shehar, District Jodhpur.

¶11

Pappudi W/o Sona Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Payaro Ki Dhani, Malawas, Malwas, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶15

Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

¶16

Tehsildar, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

¶17

Project Director (Ppp), Public Works Department, Jodhpur.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Kamini Joshi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG. Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶21

Judgment

¶22

11/07/2022

¶23

The appellants-petitioners herein have approached this Court through this intra court appeal for assailing the order dated

¶24

(2 of 6)

¶25

[SAW-336/2021]

¶26

27.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1507/2021 filed by the appellants and repelling the challenge made to the notification dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur for acquisition of land including that of the petitioners and the order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pipar City, whereby the objections submitted by the petitioners against the proposed acquisition of their lands (for the purposes of construction of State Highway) were rejected.

¶27

For the purpose of ready reference, Section 15 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) is reproduced herein below:-

¶28

“15. Hearing of objections.–(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to—

¶29

(a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired;

¶30

(b) justification offered for public purpose;

¶31

(c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report.

¶32

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such

¶33

(3 of 6)

¶34

[SAW-336/2021]

¶35

further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under subsection (1) of section 11, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that Government.

¶36

(3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub-section (2) shall be final.”

¶37

Shri Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Kamini Joshi, representing the appellants-petitioners, vehemently and fervently urges that a plain and simple reading of the statutory provision would make it clear that the objections submitted by the aggrieved persons whose land is under acquisition have to be considered and decided by the appropriate Government. He urges that in the present case, admittedly the SDO assumed the role of the appropriate Government and rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and thus, the impugned orders as being without jurisdiction are vitiated. He submits that the view taken by the learned Single Bench with reference to Section 3(e) read with Section 15 of the Act of 2013 that the Land Acquisition Officer himself would be the appropriate Government, is on the face of the record incorrect because if the said ratio is approved, the very import of Sub Section (2) of

¶38

(4 of 6) [SAW-336/2021]

¶39

Section 15 would be rendered otiose. He thus urges that the impugned order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench rejecting the writ petition of the appellants-petitioners so also the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the SDO, Pipar City deserves to be quashed.

¶40

Learned AAGs Shri Sunil Beniwal and Shri K.S. Rajpurohit representing the respondents though, vehemently and fervently tried to support the view taken by the learned Single Bench but they too could not countenance the submission of Shri Joshi that as per Section 15(2) of the Act of 2013, the objections against the proposed land acquisition under the Act of 2013 are required to be made to the Collector who, in turn would be obliged to give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned and after hearing the objections and making further enquiry, if any, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Sub Section (1) of Section 11 or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to “the appropriate Government” containing his recommendations on the objections for the decision of “that Government”.

¶41

Having thoughtfully considered the Scheme of the Act, 2013, we are of the firm view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that appropriate Government, for the purpose of Section 15 of the Act of 2013, would be the Land Acquisition Officer is per-se unsustainable.

¶42

As per Section 3(g) of the Act, the “Collector” means the Collector of Revenue District and any other officer specifically designated by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. As per the proviso to

¶43

(5 of 6)

¶44

[SAW-336/2021]

¶45

Section 3 Sub clause (5) of the Act of 2013, the District Collector has been empowered to act as the appropriate Government for the particular area not exceeding as such as may be notified by the appropriate Government. Thus, the empowerment of the District Collector to act as an appropriate Government can only be for specific parcel of land as may be notified by the State Government. No such notification was placed on record by the respondents to show that the District Collector concerned or the Land Acquisition Officer acting on his behalf under Section 3(g) was appointed as appropriate Government for the parcel of land sought to be acquired from the petitioners herein.

¶46

That apart, the power which has been conferred upon the District Collector by virtue of Sub Section 15(2) of the Act of 2013 is only to the extent of providing an opportunity of hearing to the objector, to make further enquiry, if so required and to forward a report of such enquiry for the decision of the appropriate Government. As per Sub-clause (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2013, the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections received under Sub-Section (2) shall be final. Apparently thus, the Collector or the Officer empowered in this behalf which would be the Land Acquisition Officer -cum- SDO in this case, can only hear the objections received from the aggrieved persons under Section 15 (2) of the of the Act of 2013, make an enquiry and forward his report with recommendations to the State Government which could only be the appropriate Government to take a final decision on such objections as per Section 15(3) of the Act.

¶47

(6 of 6)

¶48

[SAW-336/2021]

¶49

Apparently thus, the SDO -cum- Land Acquisition Officer, while deciding / rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) acted grossly beyond jurisdiction. The view taken by the learned Single Bench affirming the order of the SDO and rejecting the writ petition of the appellants-petitioners is thus unsustainable on the face of record. Hence the order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the SDO, Pipar City, so also the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench are reversed. The respondents shall now proceed with the matter at the stage of dealing with the objections of the appellantspetitioners which shall be processed strictly in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 15 of the of the Act of 2013. Since the Highway Project is held up qua the land parcels owned by the petitioners, the concerned officials shall expedite the process and complete the same within a period of two months from today.

¶50

The appeal is allowed in these terms.

¶51

No order as to cast.

¶52

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶53

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶54

108-Prashant / Pramod-

Kumari Kanta Chouhdary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Kanta Chouhdary v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sanju Khilery Vs State of Rajasthan

Bar Council of India Vs Chairman, Bar Council of Rajasthan

Tilok Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Poonia Vs Food Corporation of India