Back
1984 Supreme(Raj) 192
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K.MAL LODHA,KANTA KUMARI BHATNAGAR
BHERA RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
C. S. A. 120 Of 1973
Decided On : 10/18/1984
R.C.MAHESHWARI, R.N.BISHNOI
The Land Acquisition Officer's award is final and conclusive under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, and the LAO does not have jurisdiction to review this order.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - RAJASTHAN LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTIONS 11, 12, 31(3) - AWARD BY COLLECTOR - FINALITY - REVIEW - JURISDICTION - RESTORATION OF WRONG ORDER - EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was acquired for the construction of a canal. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) initially denied compensation to the petitioner, holding that he had excess land after the acquisition. However, the LAO later reviewed his decision and allotted the petitioner land in exchange for the acquired land. The Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Colonisation Commissioner, and Colonisation Minister subsequently set aside the LAO's order. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these orders and seeking restoration of the LAO's order allotting him land in exchange.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the LAO's initial order denying compensation to the petitioner was final and conclusive under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The LAO did not have jurisdiction to review this order and allot land to the petitioner in exchange. The court also held that the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Colonisation Commissioner, and Colonisation Minister did not have jurisdiction to set aside the LAO's order, as no appeal or revision lay against the LAO's order. The court further held that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be exercised to restore the LAO's order, as this would result in restoring an illegal order.
Issues: 1. Whether the LAO had jurisdiction to review his initial order denying compensation to the petitioner and allot land to the petitioner in exchange. 2. Whether the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Colonisation Commissioner, and Colonisation Minister had jurisdiction to set aside the LAO's order. 3. Whether the High Court could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to restore the LAO's order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The LAO's initial order denying compensation to the petitioner was final and conclusive under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The LAO did not have jurisdiction to review this order and allot land to the petitioner in exchange. 2. The Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Colonisation Commissioner, and Colonisation Minister did not have jurisdiction to set aside the LAO's order, as no appeal or revision lay against the LAO's order. 3. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be exercised to restore the LAO's order, as this would result in restoring an illegal order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that the LAO's order allotting land to the petitioner in exchange was illegal and that the High Court could not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore this order.
S. K. MALLODHA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dt. May 2,1973 of the learned single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1078 of 1972, by which, he allowed the petitioner-appellants writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and sent the case back to the Land Acquisition Officer to examine the case of the petitioner-appellant solely from the point of view of compensation under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (No. 24 of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) THE appellant hereinafter will be referred to as the petitioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to quash the orders (Ex. 6) dt. June, 24, 1968 of the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, (Ex. 7), dt. Aug. , 20,1969 of the Commissioner Colonisation, (Ex. 8), dt. Nov. , 22, 1970 and (Ex. 9), dt. May 22, 1971 of the Colonisation Minister, Government of Rajasthan and the notice (Ex. 10), issued by the Tehsildar Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, Suratgarh No. 2, District Sriganganagar. It was also prayed that the petitioner may be declared the Khatedar tenant of the disputed lands and the order for the grant of land in exchange passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Suratgarh be restored. A further relief was also sought that the respondents may be directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has alleged that the lands described in para 1 of the writ petition had been in his personal cultivation prior to Svt. 2012 corresponding to 1955 A. D. Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1955) (for short the Act of 1955) came into force on Oct. , 15,1955. The petitioner has averred that by virtue of S. 15 of the Act of 1955, he became Khatedar tenant. Subsequently, S. 15-A was introduced in the Act of 1955 and according to that section, Khatedari rights could not accrue in the lands which fell in the Rajasthan Canal Area. It is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioner fell within the Rajasthan Canal Area. It is, thus, clear that the Khatedari rights which had accrued to the petitioner had been taken away by the amended S. 15-A of the Act of 1955. However, S. 15-A was declared ultra vires by a decision of this Court but it was subsequently validated by an amendment in the Constitution. In a later decision in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan, 1973 WLN 52, in which the validity of S. 15-A was again questioned, it was held to be valid.
( 4 ) 39 Bighas of land of the petitioner which formed part of Khasra No. 146 was acquired for the construction of Ghaghar Canal in the year 1965-66. The award was given by the Land Acquisition Officer on April, 17, 1967 vide Annexure-R. 1. It was held by him that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation as after acquisition the petitioner still would have with him 70 Bighas of land which is beyond the ceiling fixed. A sum of Rs. 5460/- was, however, ordered to be paid as compensation for the price of the land to the State through the Collector, Sriganganagar. Here, it may be stated that the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Rajasthan Canal Project, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar was also the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act who passed the order dt. April, 17, 1967 and he was arrayed as respondent 2 in the writ petition. The order (Annexure R. 1) was passed by respondent 2 (Land Acquisition Officer, Suratgarh ). The same Land Acquisition Officer by order (Ex. 3) dt. June 24,1967 reviewed his earlier order and held that the petitioner has got a family of 15 members and the land left with him after acquisition is much less than the ceiling fixed and so, he set aside the order dated April 17, 1967. It was also found by him that the petitioner was entitled to have 39 Bighas of land in exchange of the land acquired from him. By this very order he even allotted 39 Bighas of land in Chak No. 5 SPD in Sardarpura K
