Dismissed

Dharam Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CW/1711/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings filed with an eight-year delay. The court held that since compensation was paid and received, and the acquisition initiated under the 1984 Act, the order calls for no interference regardless of the petitioner ’s request for de- notification.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and pending applications were also disposed of.

Dharam Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010477]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1711/2008

¶4

Dharam Pal Singh

¶5

Mahendra Singh Both sons of late Shri Sanwat Singh

¶6

Shyam Singh

¶7

Laxman Singh

¶8

Praveen Kumar. All sons of Shri Dharam Pal Singh

¶9

Rekha Bai daughter of Shri Dharam Pal Singh

¶10

All residents of village Karoli, Tehsil Tijara, Alwar (Raj.)

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan – through the Secretary, Department of Industries (Group-I), Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶14

The Collector, Alwar District Alwar

¶15

The Tehsildar, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar

¶16

The Land Acquisition Officer (RIICO Ltd.), 22-Godowns, Jaipur 5. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd. Jaipur

¶17

The Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Bhiwadi, Alwar (Raj.)

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naval Kishore Saini for Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Adv.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

¶21

12/05/2023

¶22

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned action of the respondents seeking to acquire the land of the petitioners and to quash the impugned award dated 12/01/2001 passed by the respondent No. 4 so far as it relates to the petitioners.

¶23

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 23.09.1997, the land belonging to the petitioners, was sought to be acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the

[2023/RJJP/010477]

[CW-1711/2008]

(2 of 3)

Central Land Acquisition Act, 1984, for the purpose of developing industrial activities in the said area.

¶28

It is also admitted that on 20.12.1997, the petitioners filed their objections to the said acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, on 12.01.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 4) initiated the said proceedings and passed the impugned award. Subsequently, on 30.03.2007, the petitioners came to know of the aforesaid impugned order/award only by way of the notice issued by respondent No. 4, upon the petitioners, for receiving the amount of compensation. Learned counsel also submitted that the compensation, like in the case of other persons, was deposited in the account of the petitioner. However, on 08.05.2007, the petitioners again submitted a letter before respondent No.4 and requested for the de-notification of their land on account of the fact that the land in question is abadi land wherein petitioners have constructed their houses and have been residing since a long period of time. It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till date, physical possession of the said land in question has not been taken by the respondents.

¶29

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners with a substantial delay i.e. in a belated manner. In this regard, it was submitted that the writ petition was preferred in the year 2008, whereas, the cause of action arose in the year 2001. Hence, it was argued that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon dictum of the Apex Court judgment in Indore

[2023/RJJP/010477]

[CW-1711/2008]

(3 of 3)

Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 as well as a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DBSAW No. 999/2021 titled as Brij Mohan Jain vs. State of Rajastha & Ors .

¶34

Considering the fact that the cause of action in the instant matter arose in the year 2001, whereas, the writ petition was preferred in the year 2008 i.e. at a belated stage of 8 years and further considering the fact that the compensation for the said acquisition proceedings has already been deposited by the respondents, which has been duly received by the petitioners as well, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The reliance placed upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (Supra) is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present dispute. In the said judgment, it was categorically held that as per Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the consequence of lapsing of the acquisition under the Act of 1984 would arise only when both the cumulative conditions of non-payment of compensation as well as possession not having been taken over are satisfied. However, considering the fact that in the present case, the amount qua the compensation has been duly paid to the petitioners, the impugned award dated 12.01.2001 calls for no interference of this Court.

¶35

In the light of the observations made herein-above, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶36

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶37

ANIL SHARMA /s-59

Dharam Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daulat Ram Vs Baiju Batham

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs Riico Andors

Jaiprakash Devat Son of Shri Madan Lal Devat Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Swami S/O Raghu Nath Das Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Bholaram Son of Shri Ramjilal Vs Harchanda Son of Shri Narain (Since Deceased)

Ramkishore Bilonia Vs Union of India Andors