IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ALOK SHARMA, J.
Dinesh Kumar Gupta And Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Raj and Ors. - Respondent
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 22685 of 2017
Decided On : 21-12-2017
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Alternate remedy under Section 64 not functional - Petition filed for denial of alternate remedy
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of objections to the grant of compensation and denial of his prayer to be granted compensation as in possession of the land acquired under an agreement to sell.
Finding of the Court:
The District Authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, though appointed, is presently not functional, leading to the denial of an alternate remedy to the petitioner.
Issues: Denial of alternate remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013
Ratio Decidendi: The non-functionality of the District Authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 led to the denial of an alternate remedy to the petitioner.
Final Decision: Notice was issued to newly impleaded respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further hearing.
ALOK SHARMA, J.
1. Amended cause title has filed impleading two additional respondents. Let amended cause title be taken on record of the petition.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Addl. GC.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Land Acquisition Officer's rejection of the objections to the grant of compensation to the recorded Khatedars of the land acquired and denial of his prayer to be instead granted compensation as in possession of the land acquired under an agreement to sell whereupon he was/is “person interested” in the land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 2013’). It has been submitted that albeit Section 64 of the Act of 2013 provides for an alternate remedy by way of reference to the District Authority against the rejection of objection, the said authority even though appointed is not functional. It has been submitted that this entails denial of alternate remedy to the petitioner. Hence this petition.
4. Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl. GC appeared on notice with Mr. R.K Jaimini, Ex. Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jaipur. His instructions are to state that the Authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 though appointed is presently not functional.
5. In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to newly impleaded respondents Nos. 4 and 5. P.F and notices be filed within four weeks failing which the matter shall stand automatically dismissed without further reference to the Court.
6. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are represented by Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl. GC. Notice need not be issued to them. Respondent No. 6 is proforma respondent, service on him dispensed with.
7. Put up on 07.02.2018 Till then status quo with regard to the disbursement of the amounts under the award dated 24.10.2017 to the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5, be maintained.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.