Allowed

Ranjeet Singh Meena S/O Shri Netaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2026CW/5098/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for Jaipur Airport expansion via 1975 award, but possession never taken and compensation unpaid. Relying on State circulars granting 25% developed land in lieu of compensation for pre-27.10.2005 awards, the Court allowed both writ petitions and directed approval and allotment within one month.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to approve and allot 25% developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in lieu of compensation per petitioners' established title and share, within one month.

Ranjeet Singh Meena S/O Shri Netaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098/2023

¶4

Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 64 Years, S/o Lt. Sh. Neta, R/o Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Deceased)

¶5

1/1. Soni Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh Meena, R/o Chainpura near by Jawahar Circle Neta Baba Ki Dhani, Jaipur-302017.

¶6

1/2. Geeta Devi Meena W/o Hari Narayan Meena D/o Ranjeet Singh meena, R/o Village Dulatpura Bagwada, Th. Amer, Jaipur. 1/3. Shila Meena W/o Ram Kailash Meena D/o Ranjeet Singh Meena, R/o Village Jhar Kothi Wali Ki Dhani, Doodhli Bassi, Jaipur.

¶7

1/4. Rajvanti Meena W/o Vishram Singh Meena D/o Ranjeet Singh Meena, R/o Village Sungadi, Unbadagav, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.

¶8

1/5. Kanta Meena W/o Sarwan Kumar D/o Ranjeet Singh Meena, R/o Village Dayarampura Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur.

¶9

1/6. savitri Meena W/o Deendayal Meena D/o Ranjeet Singh Meena, R/o Village Chainpura Panchu, Ghar Wali Dhani, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur.

¶10

1/7. Hari Mohan Meena S/o Ranjeet Singh Meena, R/o Chainpura near by Jawahar Circle neta Baba Ki Dhani, Jaipur.

¶11

1/8. Ram Babu Meena S/o Ranjeet Singh Mena, R/o Chainpura near by Jawahar Circle Neta Baba Ki Dhani, Jaipur.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary To The Government, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (I) To The Government, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶16

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Through Its Commissioner, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶17

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

[CW-5098/2023]

(2 of 9)

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023

¶25

Shri Hanumant Singh (Since Deceased) through his legal heir:-

¶26

1/1 Smt. Archana Singh W/o Late Hanumant Singh, aged about 41 years, R/o 4-K-10, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶27

….Petitioner NO.1

¶28

Shri Nangram Meena S/o Shri Gopal Lal Meena, aged about 52 Years, R/o Plot No. A 18-19, Prem Colony, Aamali Kothi, Taaro Ki Khonth, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶29

……...Petitioner No.2

¶30

Rakesh Meena S/o Late Ram Kumar Meena, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil-Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶31

----Petitioner No.3

¶32

Versus

¶33

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶34

State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (I) To The Government, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶35

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur

¶36

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Yash Kumar Khandelwal, Mr. Deependra Yadav and Mr. Aayush Goyal in CWP No.5098/2023 Mr. Madhusudan Rajpurohit, Mr. Yogesh Kalla and Ms. Nimisha Danga in CWP

(3 of 9)

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

[CW-5098/2023] 5

No.9017/2023

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Lal Meena in CWP No.5098/2023 for JDA Mr. Ajay Shukla along with Mr. Raghav Sharma, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Ms. Jyoti Sharma for JDA in CWP No.9017/2023

¶44

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶45

Order

¶46

Arguments concluded on :: February 25, 2026 Judgment reserved on :: February 25, 2026 Judgment Pronounced oni :: March 07, 2026

¶47

Both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the basic and common prayer that the respondents may be directed to grant 25% developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in view of their Policy dated 24.09.2020 as well as the Circular dated 01.06.2022 issued by the State Government in lieu of the compensation for the acquired land of the khatedars.

¶48

Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have got rights over the land in question by way of legally valid transfer of rights. The land bearing Khasra No. 63 (new Khasra No.288), Khasra No. 64 (New Khasra No.286), Khasra No. 65 (New Khasra No.288), Khasra No. 67 (New Khasra No. 289), was recorded in the name of Shri Neta (father of the original petitioner Ranjeet Singh) and the land bearing Khasra No.68 (Present Khasra No.290),

(4 of 9)

[CW-5098/2023]

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

Khasra No. 168 (Present Khasra No.296), Khasra No.169 (Present Khasra No.291), Khasra No.170 (Present Khasra No.294), Khasra No. 173 (Present Khasra No.295), Khasra No. 179 (Present Khasra Nos. 306 and 308), Khasra No. 185 (Present Khasra No. 304/271) situated at Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, which was in the khatedari of one Tariya.

¶54

A Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Act of 1953’) was issued by the Urban Improvement Trust (for short ‘the UIT’) on 21.08.1969 for acquiring the aforesaid land for expansion of the Aerodrome (Jaipur Airport). Objections were also filed by the khatedars and ultimately, declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1953 was issued in the year 1973 and thereafter, the award was passed on 17.05.1975. Though the land was acquired and because of the dispute the amount of compensation was deposited with the Civil Court, however, the possession of the land was never taken and the purpose for which the land was acquired, was also not carried out on ground and the compensation amount has also not been received by the khatedars or their legal heirs and the legal heirs of the khatedars continued in possession over the acquired land in question.

¶55

The State Government is said to have framed a Policy vide Circular dated 24.09.2020 which came to be

¶56

(5 of 9) [CW-5098/2023]

¶57

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

¶58

¶59

amended on 04.11.2020 and so also the subsequent Circulars dated 01.06.2022 and 12.07.2024 providing for 25% developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in lieu of compensation in cases where (i) awards were passed prior to 27.10.2005; (ii) compensation was unpaid or disputed; and (iii) physical possession was not taken.

¶60

It is submitted by the counsels appearing for the petitioners that though the land in question which was in the khatedari of one Mr. Neta and Mr. Tariya, rights over which came to be transferred in the name of the petitioners in a legal manner, was acquired for expansion of Jaipur Airport, however, neither the petitioners have been paid compensation nor the respondents have taken the physical possession. It is submitted that the petitioners are still in possession over the land in question and in view of the Policy of the Government, the petitioners are entitled for 25% developed land in lieu of the compensation.

¶61

The respondent- JDA has filed reply to the writ petition (in CWP No. 9017/2023), through the learned Addl. Advocate General of the State and has stated that in the light of the Policy and the Circulars issued by the State Government, the JDA has forwarded the case of the petitioners to the State Government vide letter dated 13.10.2022 for permission to allot 25% developed land in lieu

¶62

(6 of 9) [CW-5098/2023] 5

¶63

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

¶64

of compensation for the acquired land of the khatedars over which the petitioners are having their rights.

¶65

Counsel appearing for the respondent- JDA has submitted that in view of the Policy of the State Government, the JDA has already forwarded the case of the petitioners for approval of grant of 25% developed land as a compensation for the acquired land and the same is pending for consideration before the State Government.

¶66

Considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the petitioners and the respondents. 9. It is not in dispute that the land in question has been acquired by the respondents after following due process of law i.e. by issuing the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1953 and passed the award. There being a dispute as regards the compensation amount, the khatedars or their legal heirs have not received the compensation amount and the land in question still remains in possession of the khatedars or their legal heirs and the Scheme was never implemented on ground. Admittedly, the State has framed a Policy and issued the Circulars dated 24.09.2020 (amended on 04.11.2020) and the subsequent Circulars dated 01.06.2022 and 12.07.2024 for grant of 25% developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in lieu of compensation in particular cases. In

¶67

(7 of 9) [CW-5098/2023] 5

¶68

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

¶69

the reply to the writ petition filed by the JDA (in CWP No. 9017/2023), it has been admitted that a Circular dated 01.06.2022 was issued by the State Government and in view of Clause 3.1.1 of the said Circular, the JDA has already forwarded the case of the petitioners vide letter dated 13.10.2022 for permission to allot 25% developed land to the Khatedars or their legal heirs.

¶70

The respondents have already placed on record the Circular dated 01.06.2022 as Annex.R/1. The said Circular provides as under:-

¶71

"3.1.1 ददनननक 27.10.2005 ससपपररकनसरवककतअरनरर - ऐसवययजननमम 15 पदतशतआरनसवयदरकदसतभपदमआरनटनतथन वयनरसनदयकययजननमम 7.5 पदतशतवयनरसनदयकभपदमआरनटनककजन सकतवहह।

¶72

नगरवयदनकनयककययजननओनसससनबनदधतभपदमअरनदपकसऐससमनमलसदजनकन अरनररददनननक 27.10.2005 ससपपररजनरवहयचचकनथनलसदकनमचआरजस कयलसकरखनतसदनरकससनथदररनदहयनसससभपदमकनअभवतककबजननहह दलयनजनसकनहहऔरभपदमकनमचआरजननयनयनलयममजमनकरनददयनगयन हहऔरनगरवयदनकनयकसदनरनऐसवभपदमययपरदरकनसकनयर / ययजननकक दकयनदनरदतनहहहयपनरहवहहऐससपकरणयममनगरवयदनकनयककसपष अनचशनषनएरनऔदचतयपपणरपसतनरपनपहयनसपररनजयसरकनरककअनचमदतसस 15 पदतशतदरकदसत पदतशतदरकदसतआरनसवयभपदमकससथननपर 25 भपदमआरनटनकनदनणरयरनजयसरकनरकससतरपरदकयनजनसकसगन।दनणरय उपरननतदरकदसतभपदमदबनदचसनखयन 3.1.2 कसअनचसनरजहसवभवदसथदत हय , आरनदटतककजनसकसगव। "

¶73

Admittedly, the Award in the present case was

¶74

passed on 17.05.1975 i.e. prior to 27.10.2005 and as per the letter dated 13.10.2022 of the JDA itself written to the Urban

¶75

(8 of 9) [CW-5098/2023] 5

¶76

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

¶77

Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, the land in question is lying vacant and the Scheme for which the land was acquired, has not been given effect so far. In the letter dated 13.10.2022 it has also been specifically stated that because the khatedars did not accept the compensation amount, the same has been deposited with the Civil Court, meaning-thereby, the Khatedars or their legal heirs have not received the compensation amount.

¶78

In view of the terms of the Circular dated 01.06.2022, as quoted above, and the admitted fact that the land in question which was acquired, is not taken in possession by the respondents and still is lying vacant and the Scheme for which the land was acquired, has not been given effect so far and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as per Clause 3.1.1 of the Circular dated 01.06.2022. The JDA after considering the overall facts of the case has also recommended for approval to the State Government vide letter dated 13.10.2022 for award/ allotment of 25% developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in lieu of the compensation for the acquired land of the khatedars. Meaning-thereby, this Court can safely hold that in lieu of the compensation for the acquired land the Khatedars or their legal heirs are entitled for 25% developed land (20% commercial + 5% commercial) as per their share and title.

[2026:RJ-JP:9826]

[CW-5098/2023]

(9 of 9)

Since the respondent- JDA has already forwarded the case of the petitioners for approval for allotment of 25% developed land vide their letter dated 13.10.2022, the respondent-State was under an obligation to take decision and grant approval as requested by the JDA in view of the Circulars issued by the State Government itself.

¶84

In view of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to allow/ allot 25% developed land (20% residential + 5% commercial) in lieu of compensation for the land acquired according to the title and share of the petitioners as established in accordance with law. This exercise of approval from the State Government and the allotment be made within a period of one month from the date of submitting a certified copy of this order.

¶85

In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay applications and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶86

The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case file.

¶87

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶88

Sharma NK/ Dy. Registrar

Ranjeet Singh Meena S/O Shri Netaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh Meena S/O Shri Netaram 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

Sushil Khandelwal S/O Shri Govind Sharan Khandelwal Vs Shyam Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Ummed Singh

Smt. Manbhar Devi W/O Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs Jaipur Development Authority

M/S Subham Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Harsh Trading Company Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar S/O Vijay Singh Vs Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University

A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.