Dismissed

Sh. Bhagwan Saini S/O. Late Chhittar Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 May 2023SAW/31/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed special appeals challenging land acquisition notifications. The court held that appellants should seek remedy for non-payment or claim of plots in lieu of compensation from competent authorities, as challenge to acquisition itself was not maintainable in view of prior orders.

What did the court decide?

Special appeals were dismissed; appellants directed to approach competent authority for compensation or plot claims.

Sh. Bhagwan Saini S/O. Late Chhittar Saini Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 29/2022 IN

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3406/2020

¶4

Sh. Daulat Ram S/o Sh. Gulli Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

Sh. Gulli Ram Saini S/o Late Sh. Lala Ram, Aged About 85 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶6

Sh. Laxman Ram S/o Sh. Gulli Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Sh. Roop Chand S/o Sh. Gulli Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Sh. Hari Prasad S/o Sh. Gulli Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Urban Development And Housing Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Through Its Secretary Bhagat Singh Circle Road No. 2, Alwar.

¶13

Officer On Special Duty, Urban Development And Housing Department Government Of Rajasthan, Uit Office, Road No. 2, Alwar.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Connected With

¶16

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 30/2022 IN

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3409/2020

¶18

Sh. Natthu Ram Saini S/o. Sh. Ram Lal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶19

Sh. Khem Chand S/o Sh. Ram Lal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶20

Sh. Laxmi Narayan Saini S/o Sh. Ram Lal, Aged About 51

¶21

[SAW-29/2022]

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶24

----Appellants

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Urban Development And Housing Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶27

Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Through Its Secretary Bhagat Singh Circle Road No. 2, Alwar.

¶28

Officer On Special Duty, Urban Development And Housing Department Government Of Rajasthan, Uit Office, Road No. 2, Alwar.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 31/2022 IN

¶31

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3412/2020

¶32

Sh. Bhagwan Saini S/o. Late Chhittar Saini, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶33

Sh. Ram Dayal S/o Late Sh. Chhittar Saini, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶34

Sh. Khem Chand S/o Late Sh. Chhitar Saini, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶35

Sh. Chotu S/o Late Sh. Chhittar Saini, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dhobi Gatta Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶36

----Appellants

¶37

Versus

¶38

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Urban Development And Housing Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶39

Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Through Its Secretary Bhagat Singh Circle Road No. 2, Alwar.

¶40

Officer On Special Duty, Urban Development And Housing Department Government Of Rajasthan, Uit Office, Road No. 2, Alwar.

¶41

(3 of 4) [SAW-29/2022] ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathka with Mr. Kanishk Singhal For Respondent(s) :

¶42

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

05/05/2023

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be granted some more time to place on record the representation seeking compensation.

¶47

The scope of the appeals is confined to the relief sought in the writ petitions which do not relate to compensation. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has rightly observed that challenge to the notifications is not maintainable in view of earlier orders by which challenge to the land acquisition proceedings was repelled.

¶48

It appears that on an oral submission made before this Court, this Court in its order dated 11.01.2023 observed with regard to petitioners’ grievance regarding non-payment of compensation.

¶49

Since the pleadings in the writ petitions and the writ appeals do not contain anything with regard to non-payment of compensation but merely challenge the acquisition proceedings under the notification, we are not inclined to keep these appeals pending. Challenge to the order passed by the learned Single

¶50

[SAW-29/2022]

¶51

(4 of 4)

¶52

Judge is not based on valid ground, therefore, these appeals are dismissed.

¶53

It is open for the petitioners to claim compensation, if not paid. We make it clear that the non-payment of compensation or claim of developed plots in lieu of compensation would be the aspect requiring consideration and no other issue before the land acquisition authorities. Further, we also make it clear that issue of determination of compensation is also not open to challenge in view of earlier orders. That is to say except claim of payment of compensation which has already been determined, if not paid or claim of developed plot in lieu of compensation could be agitated by the appellants before the competent authority. It goes without saying that if the grievance is not redressed, it will be open for the petitioners to take appropriate remedy.

¶54

The special appeals (writ) are dismissed with aforesaid observations.

¶55

It is made clear that the order passed by the Civil Court will not come in the way of appellants seeking appropriate remedy with regard to non-payment in the matter of claiming compensation or developed plot, if not already granted.

¶56

Copy of this order be placed on record in connected files.

¶57

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ PCG/ ARTI SHARMA /21-23

Sh. Bhagwan Saini S/O. Late Chhittar Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Bhagwan Saini S/O. Late Chhittar Saini 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

Junjhar Singh Son of Shri Tejmal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Additional Collector (Stamps) Vs Samarth Life Styling Retailing Pvt. Ltd.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Sunita Tak W/O Arvind Tak

M/S. Wild Berries Bottling Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax

Khetri Tamba Shramik Sangh Vs Hindustan Copper Limited

Rajesh Kumawat S/O Sitaram Kumawat Vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur