N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2007, and involve more or less common facts, and therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
(2.) THE appeals have a chequered history, and is a sequential litigation, now coming before us by way of these appeals, the matter is coming for the first time before Division Bench by way of these appeals. Devoid of unnecessary details, it transpires from the pleadings and documents, that the controversy was triggered by filing a writ petition by an organisation, named Dalit Munch Bikaner, being S.B.C.W.P. No. 2233/85, which was decided on 16.9.91. By that writ petition, the petitioners therein sought relief against the respondents, claiming that the respondents are not entitled to dispossess the tenants and occupants of the lands lying in village Udasar, without taking proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, and also claiming for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the tenants and occupants in any manner whatsoever, and for restraining the respondents Estate Officer, Military Station, Bikaner from proceeding against any of the tenants and occupants of the lands lying in village Udasar. That writ was filed on 15.10.85. Then interim stay was also granted. However, a stand was taken that possession of the land has already been taken, way back in the year 1983. The land was taken by the military authorities, however, the contention was, that the lands were taken without taking any proceeding under law. The learned Single Judge found, that notification under Section 4 was already sent for publication. However, it was then observed, that one fails to understand as to how and at what stage the proceedings were suddenly abandoned, without determining any compensation. Inter -alia with this, it was found, that it is now military land, which stands acquired, 3 and the same is also being used for cantonment areas, and therefore, whether the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act were followed or not, the acquisition is now complete, and a fate accompali, and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by directing the respondent to follow the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. With this, it was observed "the question remains only with petitioner organization". With formulating this question, it was directed to the respondents No. 2 to 4 to decide the question of compensation, which may be payable to each of the persons, whose lands had been taken for the purpose of cantonment area, particularly the persons whose names have been mentioned in Annex. 2, annexed with that writ petition, and looking to the quality of land, and other considerations, the compensation which may be payable to each of them, may be determined, and may be paid.
(3.) IT is after this judgment, that a handful of persons chose to get awakened, even though, they did not lodge any claim earlier, may be for the reasons that they were not feeling any entitlement to any compensation, or may be for whatever other reasons. In that process, one writ No. 4232/98 was disposed of by this Court on 1.12.98, directing the SDO, Bikaner to pass award, and to pay compensation, as in that case it was not disputed fact, that the Addl. Collector had already found, that the petitioner therein was entitled to compensation, but was not paid compensation.;