This intra-court appeal was dismissed on the grounds of abatement (death of the original petitioner) and merit (no legal infirmities in the single bench order). The court observed the appellant did not avail statutory land acquisition remedies first and the appeal was delayed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 80/2020
Chamna S/o Shri Jethaji, Aged About 85 Years, Resident Of Kumbhiya, Tehsil- Chitalwana, District- Jalore.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment
25/07/2022
The instant intra-court appeal was filed by the appellant Shri Chamna for assailing the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court rejecting the writ petition (No.3211/2019) filed by the petitioner.
(2 of 4)
[SAW-80/2020]
The writ petition afore-stated was filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents unauthorizedly and without undertaking the procedure for land acquisition as prescribed by law, transgressed upon the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.2726/169 situated in Village Kumbhiya, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore whereupon, the petitioner had constructed a residential house.
It may be stated here that the land in question was acquired for construction of the Narmada canal and its distributories. The original writ petitioner, the, appellant herein Shri Chamna has passed away. Counsel for the appellant vehemently pleaded that he may be allowed to bring the LRs of the appellant on record.
It may be stated here that the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Single Bench of this Court on the ground that the counsel who was representing the petitioner opted not to press the writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to award compensation to the petitioner for covering the loss caused to him on account of demolition of the house which had been constructed by the late writ petitioner on the land in question.
The State counsel, on the other hand, had opposed the prayer of the petitioner’s counsel to withdraw the writ petition and pointed out that the land in question had been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”) and the compensation, if any qua the construction over the land could only be determined by the Land
(3 of 4)
[SAW-80/2020]
Acquisition Officer. The Court thus, relegated the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 18A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement/determination of compensation. The State counsel fairly conceded that as the petitioner was litigating for his rights, the application for determination/enhancement of compensation would not be opposed on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of leaving the petitioner at liberty to file the application before the competent authority within a period of fifteen days from the date of the order. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to withdraw the amount of compensation already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer subject to his right for seeking enhancement.
Not being satisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed the instant appeal which is delayed by 21 days. The petitioner has levelled allegations against the learned counsel who represented him before the learned Single Bench and has also filed a complaint against him in the Bar Council.
Ex-facie, we are of the view that the allegations which have been levelled by the appellant-petitioner against the lawyer are totally unwarranted. It cannot be denied that the petitioner had available to him statutory remedy under the Land Acquisition Act for opposing the acquisition and for enhancement of compensation, if so desire. Instead of availing the statutory remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner preferred the writ petition. Learned AAG Shri Beniwal submitted that the
(4 of 4)
[SAW-80/2020]
respondent authorities offered compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner but he refused the offer so made.
In view of these facts, we are of the firm view that the instant appeal has not been filed with bonafide objectives. That apart, the appellant has passed away. The date of his expiry has not been made clear by the appellant’s counsel. Otherwise also, the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference of this Court. Hence, the instant intra-court appeal fails and is dismissed as having abated and so also on merits.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
28-Sudhir AsopA/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the intra-court appeal filed against the single bench order dismissing the writ petition should be allowed.
Whether the present appellant, having died or appealing with inadequate representation after the death of the original petitioner, has locus standi.,
Whether the impugned order rejecting the writ petition suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference.
Chamna S/o Shri Jethaji
State of Rajasthan and others
Sandeep Mehta
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
