Decided on January 06,2017

Girdhari Lal Son Of Shri Ram Lalji Appellant
State Of Rajasthan, Respondents


SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.)By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court craving for the following relief:-
"By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the Land acquisition proceeding initiated vide notification dated 29.1.1993 under section 4 of the Act of 1894 and declaration under section 6 of the Act 1894 issued on 19.5.1994 pertaining to Araji No. 235 of village boranada Dist Jodhpur may kindly be quashed qua the petitioners and the said acquisition proceeding regarding acquisition of Araji No. 235 may kindly be declared lapsed as per provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013."

(2.)Facts in brief are that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are recorded khatedars of land admeasuring 1 bigha 6 biswas situated in khasra No. 235 in the revenue village Boranada/Naarnadi, District Jodhpur whereas the petitioners No. 3 to 5 have purchased land admeasuring 1 bigha 5 biswas situated in khasra No. 235 from the original khatedars. The mutation of the land in question has been entered in the relevant revenue record in the name of the present petitioners. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to herein after as 'the Act of 1894') was issued by the respondents in the year 1993 for intended acquisition of revenue land in Boranada and Narnadi villages of Jodhpur for development and extension of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) through land acquisition officer, the S.D.O., Jodhpur. The respondents through the said acquisition proposed to acquire total land admeasuring 2870 bighas 8 biswas. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued and a total of 2799 bighas 7 biswas land was decided to be acquired. After issuance of the notification and declaration for acquisition of the land, certain khatedars submitted their objections to the land acquisition officer who passed the final award on 5.1.1996 after considering such objections. Despite issuance of the final award, the petitioners as well as their predecessor in title refused to accept the compensation offered to them and in these circumstances, a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 was made to the Civil Court in the year 2010. Finally, the amount of compensation was deposited by the land acquisition officer with the Civil Court on 22.10.2010. Pursuant to the passing of the final award, the land acquisition officer sought a mauka report from the Tehsildar, Luni and was informed that the land was being used for residential and other purposes by the khatedars are still in possession thereof. It is the admitted case of the parties that till date, the petitioners have not accepted the amount of compensation in the reference petition pending before the civil Court and also that possession of the acquired land was never taken by the Land Acquisition Authority.
(3.)During the pendency of these proceedings, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') came into force with effect from 1.1.2014. The petitioners have claimed that it has clearly been stipulated in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 that in cases where the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1894 and the award has been made 5 years or earlier prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 but physical possession of the land has been taken, the proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the State Government if it so chooses would be required to initiate fresh proceedings of land acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

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