- (1.) The facts of these cases expose the blatant misuse of public office by the Minister of Urban Development, government of Rajasthan as Chairman of the appellant-Authority; they, in particular demonstrate the danger involved in entrusting unbridled dual powers in a single individual leading to abuse of office on account of lack of counter-check. It would be appropriate to extract from the enquiry report dated 12/11/1992 of the Lokayukta of Rajasthan under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1973 (9 of 1973 as under: "In view of what has been stated above, it is prima facie established that Smt Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development and Housing Department, government of Rajasthan-cum-Chairman, JDA Jaipur, Shri M. D. Kaurani, IAS, the then Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority and Shri Subhebhan Mitra, the then Zonal Officer, Lal Kothi Scheme, JDA, Jaipur, have blatantly misused their official position to favour a few influential and highly placed individuals and have also thereby caused wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to the Jaipur Development Authority and the public at large. But Smt Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development and Housing Department-cum-Chairman, JDA is not now a public servant as defined in Section 2 (1 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 41 1973 (for short 'the Act') because she has ceased to be a Minister. So investigation is not being commenced against her but the investigation deserves to be commenced against S/shri M. D. Kaurani, INDIAN administrative SERVICE and Subhebhan Mitra under Section I of the Act, and I order accordingly
(2.) Edmund Burke as early as in 1780 had lamented the corroding influence of corruption thus: "Corrupt influence, which is itself the perennial spring of all prodigality, and of all disorder, which loads us, more than millions of debt: which takes away from our arms wisdom from our councils, and every shadow of authority and credit from the most venerable parts of our constitution. "
(3.) The facts in a nutshell in these cases are as under: Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (24 of 1953 (for short 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on 29/6/1960 acquiring land in Bhojpura and Chuck Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur, popularly known as Lal Kothi Scheme, which is adjacent to Jaipur City for urban development, viz. , for multipurpose project of constructing Legislative Assembly MLA quarters etc. After following the procedure, an award was passed on 9/1/1964 and possession taken later on. Therein, apart from awarding compensation to the owners, the Land Acquisition Officer granted plots ranging between 2000 square yards to 1000 square yards to owners, sub-awardees or nominees in the scheme itself. This court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyum known as Radhey Shyam case, had held that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) was devoid of the power and jurisdiction under Section 11 to allot part of the acquired land or any land to the landowners etc. in determining compensation under Section 23 (1. It was, therefore, held that the award allotting land was void ab initio and it conferred no right on an erstwhile khatedar/owner to claim possession of the land in execution of the award. The award, confirmed in the decree under Section 26, though had become final, being a nullity, it could be questioned at any stage, when it is sought to be executed/enforced. It was, therefore, held that the execution of such a decree and delivery of the possession in furtherance of the award was invalid, void and inexecutable. These cases spring from the same foul source and being part of the same scheme and same award, are governed by the above judgment. The khatedar (owner) in this case is one Chhote Lal whose 14 bighas of land had come to " be acquired. The LAO awarded 2000 square yards to him. He entered into agreements with respondents Daulat Mal and Raj Kumari to sell 1000, 500, 250 square yards etc. The sale deeds came to be registered on 14/12/1970. The purchasers were described as sub-awardees or nominees, which terms are unknown to the law of property acquired for public purpose.;