Prabhu S/O Shri Kesar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Prabhu S/O Shri Kesar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with observations: the SDM's consent-seeking notice was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act of 2013; any future acquisition must follow the Act of 2013 procedure (notification and publication, disposal of objections, award by the competent authority); until such exercise, the land cannot be used as a public way or for any other public purpose.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's notice requiring the petitioners to consent to acceptance of compensation - issued without any notification for acquisition or award under the Act of 2013 - is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013. +1 more

Court's answer

Article 300A of the Constitution of India guarantees that no citizen shall be deprived of his property without following the procedure of law.

Ratio / Principle

In the instant case, without issuing any notification or undertaking any exercise for acquisition, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directly issued notice requiring the petitioner to submit his consent.

Key takeaways

The notice requiring the petitioner to submit consent for accepting compensation is totally without jurisdiction and is against the provisions of the Act of 2013.ratio¶27
If the petitioners' land is acquired for a public purpose, the respondents will have to follow the provisions of the Act of 2013, beginning with issuance and publication of the notification in accordance with the Act.ratio¶30
After receiving objections and their disposal, the award shall be passed by the competent authority determining the compensation to be paid for acquiring the land.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order (single judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anand Sharma) disposing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6941/2019 on 25/11/2025. Petitioners Prabhu, Ramphool, Raju and Shyoji (all sons of Shri Kesar Lal) hold khatedari rights over Khasra Nos. 510, 512 and 512/1835 (total 1.01 hectare) in village Borda, Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur. A notice from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chauth Ka Barwada had declared the land required for road construction under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 and sought the owners' consent for compensation; consent was given about eight years earlier, yet no compensation was paid while the land was being used as a public way. The State respondents (District Collector, PWD Superintending and Executive Engineers, SDO) submitted that no acquisition notification or award existed, possession had not been taken, and statutory proceedings would be followed when the land is required. Invoking Article 300A of the Constitution, the court held the consent-seeking notice wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the 2013 Act, and observed that any acquisition must proceed by notification issued and published, disposal of objections, and award by the competent authority determining compensation; absent that exercise, the respondents cannot use the land as a public way or for any other public purpose.

[2025:RJ-JP:47735]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6941/2019

Prabhu

Ramphool

Raju 4. Shyoji All are S/o Shri Kesar Lal, Resident Of Borda, Tehsil Chauth-Ka-Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

1. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Sawai Madhopur.

1. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division-Ii, Sawai Madhopur.

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Yenu Satyan with
	Mr.	Jai Kishan Yogi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	V.P. Gathala AGC
	Mr.	DheerajTripathi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

25/11/2025

It is stated that the petitioners are having khatedari rights over the land bearing Khasra No.510, 512, 512/1835 total measuring 1.01 hectare situated in village Borda, Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

[2025:RJ-JP:47735]

[CW-6941/2019]

(2 of 3)

Chauth Ka Barwada mentioning therein that their land would be required for construction of road under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 for which, compensation has to be paid hence, consent of the petitioner was required.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to such notices, the petitioner accorded his consent however, despite expressing his consent 8 years back, not a single penny towards compensation has been paid to the petitioner and the respondents are using the land of the petitioner as public way.

Learned counsels appearing for the respondent-State submit that at no point of time, any notification for acquisition under the provisions of the Act of 2013 has been issued and no award whatsoever has been passed for acquiring the land of the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents have not taken of the possession of the petitioners' land. It is submitted that as and when petitioners' land would be required legal proceedings under the Act of 2013 or any other statute shall be followed.

Heard and considered.

Article 300A of the Constitution of India guarantees every citizen that he shall not be deprived of his property without following the procedure of law. In the instant case, without issuing any notification or undertaking for any exercise for acquisition, directly notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate requiring the petitioner to submit his consent for accepting compensation which is totally without jurisdiction and is against the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case, the land of the petitioner is acquired by the respondents for public purpose, even

(3 of 3) [CW-6941/2019]

[2025:RJ-JP:47735]

then, they will have to follow the provisions of the Act of 2013 wherein, firstly, notification shall be issued and published in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after receiving objections and disposal thereof, the award shall be passed by the competent authority for determining the compensation to be paid for acquiring the land of the petitioner and without undertaking any such exercise, the respondents cannot utilize the land of the petitioner either for public way or any other public purpose.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

NEERU/63