Partly allowed

Vivek Lodha v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2023CW/2000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compensation awarded under the old Act. It held the new Act of 2013 did not apply. While rejecting some claims, it ordered payment of court deposit and interest for the delay in disbursing the awarded amount due to lack of funds.

What did the court decide?

Allowed prayer for payment of court deposit and directed respondents to pay interest at 9% per annum from date of award till date of deposit and release the remaining amount.

Vivek Lodha Vs the State of Rajasthan — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/008653]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2000/2021

¶4

Vivek Lodha S/o Shri Nirmalchand Lodha, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Jain, R/o Nirmal Deep, Paota B/2 Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.

¶10

The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Luni , Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1829/2021

¶14

Usha Lodha W/o Shri Nirmalchand Lodha, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Nirmal-Deep, Paota B/2 Road, Jodhpur.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶19

Regional Manager, Riico Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.

¶20

The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Luni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1961/2021

(2 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/008653]

[CW-2000/2021]

Usha Lodha W/o Shri Nirmalchand Lodha, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Nirmal-Deep, Paota B/2 Road, Jodhpur.

¶27

----Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶30

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶31

Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.

¶32

The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Luni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2003/2021

¶35

Nirmal Chand Jain S/o Sugan Chand, Aged About 60 Years, Nirmal Deep, Paota B/2 Road, Jodhpur.

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶39

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development Anad Investemnt Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶40

Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.

¶41

The Land Acquisition Officer Cm Sub Divisional Officer, Luni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2190/2021

¶44

Vivek Lodha S/o Shri Nirmalchand Lodha, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Nirmal-Deep, Paota B/2 Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

[2023/RJJD/008653]

[CW-2000/2021]

(3 of 6)

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶51

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶52

Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.

¶53

The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Luni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶54

----Respondents

¶55

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit

¶56

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶57

Order

¶58

05/04/2023

¶59

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2000/2021.

¶60

"A. The compensation award dated 24.09.2013 (Annex.4) made by the land acquisition officer cum SDO, Luni may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶61

B. In the alternately, the compensation award may kindly be directed to be made afresh while taking into consideration of provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

(4 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/008653]

[CW-2000/2021]

C. The respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioners from the date of initial notification till receipt of payment of compensation."

¶66

The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioners were having agricultural land at Village Boranada Patwar, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. There was a notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 16.08.2010 under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for the development of industrial area. The compensation of award was made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 after adhering to all other procedures on 24.09.2013. The amount was however, not available to be disbursed by the respondent upto three years from 2013, as it is reflected in the RTI document, which is at page no.85 of the writ petition; the amount in question itself came for disbursement in the year 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') has to be made applicable in the present matter. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jawari Lal Jain & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.173/2019), decided on 06.07.2020, relevant portion of which reads as under :-

¶67

"14. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that even under the Scheme of Act of 1894, as soon as the award is passed, the Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to the person interested, suffice it to say that

[2023/RJJD/008653]

[CW-2000/2021]

(5 of 6)

no such case was ever set out by the writ petitioners in the writ petition filed or the present appeals and therefore, the question of consideration of the abstract contention sought to be raised by the writ petitioners at this stage, without any foundation of fact, cannot be entertained by this Court. Moreover, under Section 31 of the Act of 1894, on making the award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingency mentioned in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 31. From the provisions of Section 31, in no manner it could be inferred that if the award amount is deposited with some delay, it will vitiate the acquisition proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the writ petitioners have already accepted the amount of compensation with interest and therefore, at this stage, even otherwise, they are precluded from raising any issue regarding the legality of land acquisition proceedings on the ground of alleged violation of the provisions of the Act of 1894. "

¶72

4.1. Thus, the prayer of compensation to be awarded under the Act of 2013 cannot be accepted.

¶73

The contention regarding the window given under Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is also settled by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the language of the act itself, which provide for an award to come within the domain of the Act of 2013 only if the same was passed five years before the Act was brought into existence and admittedly, the award is of 2013 and subsequently the Act of 2013 also come into force, thus, the window of Section 24 of the Act is not available.

(6 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/008653]

[CW-2000/2021]

At this juncture, the contention of these two counts which pertain to prayer 'A' and 'B' have failed.

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner has agitated only prayer 'C'. Prayer 'C' is worth consideration because admittedly the disbursement authority was not armed with the amount in question when the award was passed on 24.09.2013 and such amount to be disbursed first time was given to the disbursing authority only in year 2016, thus, to this extent, the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to give interest at the prevailing bank rate in fixed deposit at that time from the period of the award i.e. 24.09.2013 till the period when the amount was actually deposited in the court by the disbursing authority. Rest of the amount of award, which the petitioner is entitled to receive and which is lying with the court, be also released in favour of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest accrued.

¶79

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶80

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶81

56 to 60-Sudheer/-

Vivek Lodha v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Lodha v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Charan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohsin Ali Ansari Vs the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Local Self Govt.

Ranjeet Singh Vs Chail Kanwar

Vivek Lodha Vs the State of Rajasthan

Usha Lodha Vs the State of Rajasthan