VIRENDRA SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE (URBAN DEVELOPMENT) ORS
LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-194
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 24,2014

Virendra Singh And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
State (Urban Development) Ors Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners in all the petitions have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') by seeking prayers for quashing and setting aside the notifications under Section 4,6 and 9A of the said Act and the award dated 11.9.08 (31.7.08 in some cases) passed under the said Act. The petitioners have also prayed that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the said notifications and the award be declared as 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 sought following interim relief in the present stay applications pending the writ petitions:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this stay application and the impugned notifications under Section-4,6 and 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the impugned award dated 11.9.2008 (31.7.08) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer may kindly be stayed and further the petitioners may not be dispossessed from their lands, during the pendency of the writ petition."

(2.)At the outset it is required to be mentioned that these petitions have chequerred history and this is the third round of petitions filed by the petitioners. From the record it appears that the present set of petitions, 34 in numbers, was filed pending the other set of petitions being SBCWP No. 8200/12, 8149/12, 8198/12 and 8199/12 seeking same prayers as prayed in these petitions. In the earlier set of petitions, the concerned officers of the JDA had raised preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the said petitions and also the objections that in some of the petitions, names of dead persons were shown as the petitioners, and that in other petitions, names of many petitioners were repeated in the cause-titles of the petitions. There being call of strike given by the Bar Association, the lawyers were not present and the petitioner Virendra Singh of SBCWP No. 9126/14, on behalf of the other petitioners in other petitions had sought time to do the needful in response to the said objections. The court having granted time, the present petitions were filed by the petitioners, who were also the petitioners in the earlier petitions. The court without going into the technicality of the matter, had subsequently permitted the petitioners to withdraw the earlier set of petitions vide the order dated 22.9.14.
(3.)Since the present set of petitions, 34 in numbers, were filed during the period of strike, it appears that there was no Vakalatnama of any advocate filed on behalf of the petitioners, nor the petitioners were identified before the Oath Commissioner, before whom the petitions were affirmed. As a result thereof, all the petitions have been filed without proper affirmation and without proper identification of the petitioners either by the advocates or by the Oath Commissioners. Yesterday Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel was permitted to make submissions on behalf of the petitioners in all the petitions on the assumption that he had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of all the petitioners in all the petitions, however today on being asked by the court, he has stated that he has filed his Vakalatnama only in 15 petitions out of 34 petitions. This technicality assumes importance as the petitions were filed without proper identification of the petitioners. Earlier set of petitions filed by the petitioners including the present petitioners was sought to be withdrawn as the dead persons were shown as the petitioners and the names of some of the petitioners were also repeated in the cause-titles of the petitions. Having said so, the court proceeds to advert to the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG for the respondent No.2.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.