Remanded

Vivek Lodha HUF v. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer)

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2023CW/621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order addressed a writ petition challenging the closure of evidence in a land acquisition reference case. The court held that procedural barriers must not subjugate substantive justice and granted the petitioner an opportunity to adduce further evidence if they pay the imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted effective opportunity by the learned Court below to adduce evidence on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost.

Vivek Lodha HUF Vs Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub… — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:44105]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 621/2022

¶4

Vivek Lodha Huf, Through Its Karta Vivek Lodha S/o Shri Nirmal Chand Lodha, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Paota B2 Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer), Rohat, Pali District Pali, Jodhpur.

¶8

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur.

¶9

Senior Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Pali.

¶10

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶12

Order

¶13

22/11/2023

¶14

Impugned herein is an order dated 23.01.2021 (Annex-8) passed by Learned District Judge, Pali in Civil Misc. Case No. 08/2017 with further permission to the petitioner to adduce evidence by granting opportunity for the needful.

¶15

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

¶16

2.1 The State Government issued notifications on 21.12.2010 and 7.10.2011 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894,(hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1894') for acquiring total of 220.46 hectares of land situated in different khasras of villages Rohat and Nimbali Brahmanaan, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali. After

[2023:RJ-JD:44105]

[CW-621/2022]

(2 of 4)

completing the procedural requirement of hearing objections under Section 5 A of the Act of 1894, another notification was published under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 5.1.2012, and an award dated 16.3.2015 was passed to conclude the entire acquisition proceeding. By the said award, an amount of Rs. 1,52,72,64,207/- was determined as compensation for the acquisition of the entire land.

¶21

2.2 The petitioner filed an application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013') before the District Collector, Pali, to refer the matter to the Competent Authority for the determination of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter submitted a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 before learned District Judge, Pali, and also deposited the amount of compensation for the petitioner before the same. The petitioner filed an objection petition against the amount of compensation so determined.

¶22

2.3 There are as many as 18 identical cases of reference in relation to the same acquisition proceedings, and owing to the similar nature of all the cases, an application on 23.10.2021 was filed by one Shri Umaid Raj Jain in Civil Reference Case No. 69/2016 for the consolidation of all the cases. All the identical 18 matters were collectively listed for evidence on 23.10.2021. However, the learned District Court, vide an order dated 23.10.2021, abruptly closed the evidence and posted the matter for final hearing. Hence, the instant writ petition.

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:44105]

[CW-621/2022]

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner was given as many as 7 opportunities for cross-examination but when he failed to do so, the impugned order was then passed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

¶28

An earlier order dated 13.01.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court being relevant is reproduced herein below:

¶29

“1. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also. Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks. 2. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the next date before the court below is today, i.e. 13.01.2022, and therefore, he prays that the case be ordered to be adjourned to enable the petitioner to appear before the trial court for evidence. He submits that affidavit (s) in evidence has/have already been filed.

¶30

3. In the facts of the present case, it is deemed appropriate and hence ordered that if on 18.01.2022, the petitioner presents all his witnesses, they shall be examined/cross examined subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-

¶31

4. In case the cost is not accepted by the respondents/ learned counsel for the respondents and they want to contest the present writ petition, further proceedings in Civil Misc. Case No. 08/2017 pending before learned District and Sessions Judge, Pali shall remain stayed.

¶32

5. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner does not pay the cost as directed herein-above and does not produce his witnesses, no further opportunity shall be granted to him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall instruct the counsel appearing before the trial court to apprise the Court about passing of the instant order with a request to the trial ocrt to post the matter on 18.01.2022.”

¶33

It transpires that the cost imposed by this Court was not accepted by the respondents, resultantly, further trial is held up.

¶34

On a curt query, learned counsel states that there are few more similarly situated individuals qua whom lis is pending. In the premise, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case further opportunity is granted to the petitioner to crossexamine and adduce his evidence.

[2023:RJ-JD:44105]

[CW-621/2022]

(4 of 4)

Prejudice would indeed, be caused to petitioner herein, unless afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence. Trite law it is that Rules of procedure are handmaid to justice and ought not be given precedence at the cost of subjugation of substantive justice. The procedural provisions cannot be allowed to thwart legal and substantial justice between the parties. The valuable right of litigants to establish their cases by adducing evidence ought not to be taken away by the Court except in a case of their deliberate omission/failure to produce evidence more so if the other side can be compensated by costs.

¶39

Accordingly, the petitioner shall be given an effective opportunity by the learned Court below to adduce his evidence on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost, subject of course to the discretion of learned Court below to further grant opportunity, in case it so desires depending upon exigency of work before it.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶41

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶42

99-ns/Dhananjay 1/-

Vivek Lodha HUF v. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Lodha HUF v. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer)

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

Yudhistir Singh Vs Jagdish Singh

Vijay Kumar Vs M/S Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd.

Karan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Phool Singh Meena Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Komal Singh Vs Jai Narain Vyas University

Govind Vs State of Rajasthan