- (1.) The case of the petitioner-trust is that acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894') on 31.03.2010 against the property in the ownership of the petitioner-trust. It is submitted that the petitioner-trust did not seriously oppose the acquisition proceedings following the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 aforesaid, but instead addressed a letter dated 05.05.2010 to the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department inter alia stating that if the acquisition of the land of the petitioner-trust was indeed necessary, the petitioner-trust would not oppose it, but instead require an alternative parcel of land such that it could carry out its charitable activity of running a school and also using the property for generating recurring income for the trust. Counsel submits that even though the notification dated 31.03.2010 issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 showed the ownership of the land in issue in favour of the petitioner-trust, subsequently owing to certain machinations of the members of the Khandelwal Vaishya Panchayat, allotment of alternative land in lieu of the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Act under the notification dated 31.03.2010 has been made to the Khandelwal Vaishya Panchayat and not to the petitioner-trust. It is submitted that in this regard a notice dated 14.11.2011 was addressed to the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota pointing out that the alternative parcel of land was to be alloted to the petitioner-trust and had wrongly been alloted to Khandelwal Vaishya Panchayat.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-trust and perused the writ petition.
(3.) It is clear from the contents of the writ petition and arguments advanced before this Court that the issue in the petition is not about the legality or otherwise of the acquisition proceedings, but about the right to allotment of an alternative parcel of land in lieu of the land acquired. On the one hand the petitioner-trust seeks the right to allotment of alternative land and on the other Khandelwal Vaishya Panchayat claimed the alternative parcel of land stated to have been so alloted. The issue therefore is as to which of the two entries was entitled to allotment of alternative parcel of land. The determination of this issue would be dependent upon the right of the petitioner-trust on the one hand and of Khandelwal Vaishya Panchayat on the other and this thus is effectively a dispute of title which this Court would loath to address in the present proceedings.;