Dismissed

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited(Riico), v. Raj Kumar Jain S/O Shri Pukhraj

Rajasthan HC16 May 2024CMA/1290/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Justice dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal against an order awarding land acquisition compensation. The court held that the Trial Court correctly determined the rate based on available evidence and affirmed its findings.

What did the court decide?

The instant civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment… — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:24222]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1290/2004

¶4

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited(Riico), Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Raj Kumar Jain S/o Shri Pukhraj, Resident Of Tabiji, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) (Since Deceased)-Through His Legal Heirs-

¶8

1/1. Smt. Archana D/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ahmedabad (Gujrat).

¶9

1/2. Smt. Ajnu D/o Late Shir Raj Kumar Jain, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Bankok (Thailand).

¶10

The District Collector, Ajmer (Rajashtan).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pranjul Chopra with Ms. Anjali Gaur & Mr. Ankur Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Saksena

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

16/05/2024

¶16

Instant S.B. Civil Misc. appeal No. 1290/2004 is preferred aggrieved from order dated 29.07.2003 in LAC case No. 3/1985 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajmer.

¶17

Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon judgment in case of Tarlochan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/1590/1994 has submitted that the determination on the basis of sale deed of small piece of land cannot be equated with market price of large parcel of

[2024:RJ-JP:24222]

[CMA-1290/2004]

(2 of 5)

land. He submits that herein this case, the Trial Court has committed serious error while computing the compensation at the rate of ₹12/- per square yard instead of rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. He also submitted that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous, and same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that after considering the material on record the Court below has passed the order for allowing compensation at a rate of ₹12/- per square yard instead of ₹18/- per square yard which was market rate at the time of acquisition of land.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for appellant. 5. A perusal of record indicated that land of respondent was acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer has determined compensation at the rate of ₹7250/- in land acquisition case No. 01/1977 on 14.01.1985. 6. Aggrieved from aforesaid, a reference under Section 18 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was filed and learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, Ajmer) has decided the reference and passed the following order:

¶24

izkFkhZ jktdqekj tSu dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g jsQjsUl dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe [kljk ua- 1436 xzke nkSjkbZ] rglhy o ftyk vtesj ds lEcU/k esa fo)ku Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh] vtesj }kjk ifkjr vokMZ vkns”k fnukad 14&01&1985 dks vkaf”kd :i ls la”kksf/kr djrs gq;s] ;g vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd [kljk ua- 1436 dh Hkwfe esa ls ml Hkkx dks NksM dj] ftldk foØ; izkFkhZ us izn”kZ&3 ds tfj;s Jherh Lo.kZ NkcM+k dks fd;k gS rFkk izn”kZ&4 ds tfj;s ftldk foØ; Mk- pUnz eksgu [kVwj dks fd;k gS] dks NksM dj “ks’k Hkwfe dk eqvkotk :i;s 12@& ¼v{kjs ckjg :i;s½ izfr oxZxt dh nj ls r; fd;k tkrk gS tks izkFkhZ dks ns; gksxkA mijksDr eqvkots dh jkf”k ds

(3 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:24222]

[CMA-1290/2004]

vykok izkFkhZ Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds rgr vfuok;Z Hkwfe vokfIr ds dkj.k mls ns; ykHk 10-00 izfr”kr ds fglkc ls rFkk dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k ls 4-00 izfr”kr okf’kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rnkuqlkj fMØh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA vkns”k dh ,d izfr fo)ku Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh dks izsf’kr dh tkosA

¶29

In case of Tarlochan Singh and Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of land acquisition on Ludhiana-Chandigarh Road and held that future development and potential prospective use of acquisition etc. are not relevant circumstances, for determination of compensation. Similarly, the purpose of acquisition is not relevant and appellants are not entitled for further increase in compensation.

¶30

A perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly indicate that dissatisfied from the determination of compensation by the Division Bench of the High Court the claimant had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court but the facts narrated in the judgment clearly indicate that the compensation was already awarded at higher rate than the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶31

Herein, this case a perusal clearly suggests that a claim of ₹15 per square yard was demanded and further a claim of ₹20,000/- per bigha was mentioned and it was contended that for similar type of land in Beawar, the compensation awarded was ₹25,000/- per bigha, thus, the claimant claimed ₹40,000/per bigha in his petition. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record submitted by both the parties noticed that adjacent land was sold at the rate of ₹19/- per square yard in 1981 and same had sold after one year at the rate of Rs.50 per

[CMA-1290/2004]

[2024:RJ-JP:24222]

(4 of 5)

square yard. Similarly, land acquired in Beawar, land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of ₹24,000/- per bigha. The Trial Court has considered the documents submitted by the present appellant and found that these documents were not related with the land adjacent to disputed land proposed to be acquired. 10. After considering the material on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that in 1979 rate of land proposed to be acquired was ₹12/- per square yard and accordingly it determined the compensation. 11. The material on record was well considered and appreciated by the Trial Court. The order passed by the Trial Court is well-reasoned and same is in conformity with the material placed on record. Therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the process adopted by the Trial Court, while considering the material placed on record.

¶36

In view of aforesaid, the Trial Court has rightly decided the issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favor of respondent-applicant. As regards to issue Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned Ex.1 and Ex.2 were produced in support of the claim compensation and moreover, the award was passed in favor of applicant, therefore he has a right to claim enhanced compensation by filing reference under Section 18 of the Act. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were rightly decided by the Trial Court. Issue No. 6 pertains to Limitation Act and no specific point was raised during the course of arguments and we do not find anything contrary to the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Thus, the findings recorded on issues Nos. 1 to 6 are hereby affirmed and present

[2024:RJ-JP:24222]

[CMA-1290/2004]

(5 of 5)

civil misc. appeal is devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41