Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners through their power of attorney holder, seeking directions against the respondents not to undertake the process of regularizing the plots of land bearing Khasra No. 353 (old) i.e. Khasra Nos. 419 and 420 (new) of Village Manpura Deori @ Golyavas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'), and to treat the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land in question as having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013'). The petitioners have also sought to declare that the award dated 13/6/1991 in respect of the land in question is nonest.
(2.) IT is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. D.K. Dixit for the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, which was sought to be acquired by the respondent State for the development of Prithviraj Nagar Scheme, and an award was also made on 13/6/1991 in respect of the said acquisition, however the possession thereof was not taken by the respondents, but on the basis of forged documents some wrongdoers had encroached upon the said land on the ground that the said land was allotted to them by the Shankar Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. He further submitted that the petitioners therefore had filed the criminal and civil cases against the said encroachers, and the concerned Court had directed the parties to maintain the status quo, however the JDA was bent upon regularizing the said plots craved out on the land in question in favour of the encroachers. Relying upon the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, and the decision of this Court in case of Jhutharam & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2442/2015, he submitted that the petitioners having not been paid compensation nor the possession of the said land having been taken from the petitioner by the respondents for a period of five years after the award was made, the land acquisition proceedings had stood lapsed. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the petition has been filed by the petitioners through power of attorney holder Shri Shankar Lal Sharma. The issue of filing of writ petition through power of attorney holder or through somebody else is no more res -integra. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the legal rights that can be enforced in writ jurisdiction must be the rights of the petitioner himself/herself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. The existence of a right and infringement thereof are the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and such right has to be the personal or individual right of the petitioner. Beneficial reference of decision of Supreme Court in case of Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. U.O.I., : AIR 1951 SC 41, in case of State of Punjab vs. Suraj Prakash Kapur, : AIR 1963 SC 507 in case of State of Orissa vs. Ramchandra Dev : AIR 1952 SC 12, in case of Cyril E. Fernandex vs. Sr. Myria Lydia & Ors, : AIR 1977 SC 2145 be made in this regard. The petition therefore having been filed by the so called power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is also required to be noted that apart from the fact that the original power of attorney has not been produced on record, from the copy it appears that no such power to file the present petition was given by the petitioners to the alleged power of attorney holder Shankar Lal Sharma and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) IT is further required to be noted that the petitioners had already filed a writ petition being No. 10807/2014, seeking similar prayers as prayed for in the present petition, however the same was withdrawn with the permission to file fresh petition as per the order dated 27/10/2014. Since the order is silent as to why the liberty to file the fresh petition was granted, though it was dismissed as withdrawn, the present petition filed by the petitioners on the same grounds and on the same cause of action as such would not be maintainable. However since the liberty has been granted by the Court, the present petition is decided on merits also.;