Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and others - Appellants
Versus
Jeev Raj and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.1585 and 1586 of 2005
Decided on : 11-08-2011
Land Revenue Act - Section 259 – Jurisdiction - Claimed compensation - Appeals arise from the final judgment and order - Thereafter in after a gap of about respondents again claimed compensation as price of aforesaid land and stone slabs from PHED through a notice - PHED passed an order to restore land in question to respondents in lieu of compensation amount sought for by them – Held, In view of same it is desirable that since State Government is going to decide the allotment of land in pursuance of the impugned judgment Court are of view that let State Government may as well decide the grant of remaining of land allotted vide order in accordance with law - It is also to point out that even the Division Bench in its judgment has clearly recorded fact that the land in question was part of catchment area for canal and stone slabs which were obstructing flow of water and, therefore of land was cancelled - Division Bench has also recorded the stand of the State Government that soon after was granted, it was realized that same had been granted wrongly because land fell under the catchment area of Lake and it was for this reason that subsequently in said was cancelled and compensation was paid to appellants therein for stone slabs which had been removed. Further, Revenue Minister, in his order has clearly recorded that it came to knowledge that cannot be granted to appellants therein inasmuch as aforesaid land falls within catchment area of feeder canal of and, therefore was cancelled - Inasmuch as land in question was being utilized as catchment area of potable water grant of was void initio and therefore it was cancelled - Even learned single Judge in his order, has recorded while narrating the facts Chief Engineer of PHED had issued notices to respondents along with others mentioning that land was falling in the feeder canal catchment area and, therefore PHED wanted back the complete land - Court also accept statement of that in larger public interest no land can be allotted or granted if it obstructs the flow of water above principle has been reiterated by this Court in several orders – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 270 of 2002 and D.B. Cross Objection No. 1 of 2003 wherein the appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed and the cross objection filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court.
2. Brief facts:
(b) On 05.09.1945, the respondents claimed compensation of Rs.37,826/- for the loss of their land and stone slabs. On 14.06.1949, the State Government made payment of Rs.9,377/- as compensation to the respondents.
(c) Thereafter, in the year 1968, after a gap of about 20 years, the respondents again claimed compensation of Rs.73,885/- as price of the aforesaid land and stone slabs from the PHED through a notice. The PHED passed an order dated 23.04.1969 to restore the land in question to the respondents in lieu of compensation amount sought for by them. In compliance of the said order, the possession of 460.15 Bighas of land was restored to them on 27.05.1969 and the same was also mutated in their name.
(d) On some complaints being made, the restoration of the land was cancelled by the State Government on 01.05.1973. Challenging the same, the respondents filed writ petition before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 24.11.1976, quashed the order dated 01.05.1973 and directed that in case the State wants to reopen the order dated 23.04.1969, it can do so by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. After the aforesaid judgment, on 25.03.1978, a notice was served on the respondents by the PHED stating that it wanted to get the land back from the respondents which had been restored to them for its own use and order dated 23.04.1969 was sought to be recalled. It was also stated that the respondents are liable to be evicted from the land in question. The respondents filed objections against the notice for recalling the order dated 23.04.1969.
(e) Since the notice for recalling the order dated 23.04.1969 has not been formally dropped, the respondents filed a suit in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur. The Munsif Magistrate, by order dated 30.06.1982, decreed the suit restraining the State Government from making any alterations in the contract that has come into existence in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.1969. Notices were sent to the respondents to appear before the Revenue Minister as the Revision Petition for cancellation of the plot granted in the year 1969 was pending before him. The parties appeared before the Revenue Minister. By order dated 15.12.1992, the Revenue Minister cancelled the order dated 23.04.1969.
(f) Challenging the order of the Revenue Minister, the respondents filed a petition being W.P. No. 1526 of 1993 before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 19.03.2002, allowed the same.
(g) Against the said judgment, the State filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 270 of 2002 and the respondents also filed cross objections before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 14.10.2003, dismissed the appeal filed by the State and allowed the cross objection filed by the respondents herein.
(h) Aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
