- (1.) THIS petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
(2.) IT is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and further be pleased to:- (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof to thereby quash and set aside the notice under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as published for the land of the petitioner land in Khasra No.270 (old) and 658, New at village Khedarsar Tehsil Jhunjhunu and all acquisition proceedings taken in the pursuance thereof. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondents not to proceed with taking possession of land in khasra No.270(old) and 658, New at village Khedarsar Tehsil Jhunjhunu Khasra No.270 (658 new) of land till pendency of present writ petition. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby in the alternative to direct the respondents to decide the compensation of the land afresh at market rates prevailing as on date and till the same is finally decided no possession be taken for the land in question. (iv) Pass any appropriate order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material available on record of the writ petition. In the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that the award in respect of land in issue was passed on 11-3-1998, and cheques towards the compensation for land acquired amounting to Rs.2,91,340/- in the name of each of the petitioners handed over to the petitioners and the same have been encashed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequent to acquisition of the land and payment of the compensation, the State Government in spite of the vesting of the land did not take any proceeding for mutation of land in its name or the beneficiary RIICO and the land in issue continued to be in the name of petitioners in the record of rights as is clear from Jamabandi of Samvat 2064 to 2067. It is submitted that all through the period, since the passing of the award and payment of compensation, the petitioners were in possession of land, even though only recently a road has been constructed through the land in issue. It is submitted that in the aforesaid facts the letter dated 2-12-2011, addressed by the Manager RIICO to SDO Jhunjhunu for change of mutation in its name should be interfered with by this court in view of long inaction of the State Government and RIICO to have the land mutated in their name and the land acquisition proceedings should be taken to have been abandoned. The alternative argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners should be allotted alternative parcel of land. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and having perused the material available on record of the writ petition, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as it has been filed in the year 2012 in respect of the award dated 11-3-1998, under which cheques towards compensation for land acquired amounting to Rs.2,91,340/- in the name of each petitioners were handed over to the petitioners which have also been encashed by them. The proceedings for acquisition of land have been completed, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to challenge the award dated 11-3-1998 or any proceeding prior thereto. Further it appears that the State Government has handed over the land to RIICO, and the RIICO has constructed a road thereon. RIICO having now detected the oversight in not having the land acquired and allotted to it mutated in its name and has now required the SDO Jhunjhunu to make the necessary entry in the land revenue records. This action of RIICO is not barred in any law or prohibited under any doctrine. RIICO is the transferee/ allottee of the land hence owner thereof and in possession as admitted from the fact of a road having been built over a portion thereof, is entitled to have mutation of the land in issue carried out in its name in the revenue record in accordance with law. In the facts of the case, there is no substance in the writ petition, and the same is dismissed. Stay application also dismissed.
(3.) HOWEVER, if the petitioners are now landless agriculturist they can approach the State Government for consideration of allotment of agricultural land and the application therefor will be addressed in accordance with law thereon.;