Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S. Ravindra Bhat, Pushpendra Singh Bhati, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Kalu Ram and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 300 and 423 of 2017
Decided On : 03-09-2019
For the Appellant : Rekha Borana, AAG, Saransh Vij and Vaishali Parihar
For the Respondents: Anil Vyas
Headnote:
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 -1983 – Sections 5(43), 14, 15 and 15AAA – Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 18 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Seeking directions to determine compensation for petitioners and others in terms of previous judgment of Court in Dalit Manch of Bikaner v. Union of India & ors – Held, In Documents petitioners' name were recorded in amabandis, at least from 2016 onwards, and it does appear, that since land went into Colonisation, revenue entries not maintained by revenue authorities – Submission made on behalf of petitioners, as recorded in Annex-21, about their having been allotted land for one year, then appellant producing order of SDO, allotting land for one year, concerned, we are not impressed with point, inasmuch as, under Act, 1955 or Rules framed thereunder, or under any other provisions, as were prevailing in 1960 – No provision, for making allotment of land for one year, nor any such provision has been shown to us to be existing at that time – Even for sake of argument it was presumed, that land was allotted for one year, even in that event, entry cannot be said to be unlawful, and thereafter it is not shown on side of appellants, as to when, and how, and by adopting what procedure, possession of petitioners was resumed – Writ-petitioners were in possession for any period which entitled them to compensation, such compensation shall determined within six months – Appeals partly allowed – (Paras: 11,15,16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Seeking directions to determine compensation for petitioners and others in terms of previous judgment of Court in Dalit Manch of Bikaner v. Union of India & ors.
Findings of the court:
In Documents petitioners' name were recorded in amabandis, at least from 2016 onwards, and it does appear, that since land went into Colonisation, revenue entries not maintained by revenue authorities – Submission made on behalf of petitioners, as recorded in Annex-21, about their having been allotted land for one year, then appellant producing order of SDO, allotting land for one year, concerned, we are not impressed with point, inasmuch as, under Act, 1955 or Rules framed thereunder, or under any other provisions, as were prevailing in 1960 – No provision, for making allotment of land for one year, nor any such provision has been shown to us to be existing at that time – Even for sake of argument it was presumed, that land was allotted for one year, even in that event, entry cannot be said to be unlawful, and thereafter it is not shown on side of appellants, as to when, and how, and by adopting what procedure, possession of petitioners was resumed – Writ-petitioners were in possession for any period which entitled them to compensation, such compensation shall determined within six months.
Result: Appeals partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents/petitioners seeking directions to determine compensation for the petitioners and others in terms of the previous judgment of the Court in Dalit Manch of Bikaner v. Union of India & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2233/1985 decided on 16.9.1991).
2. The petitioners filed these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, before the court alleging that they approached the Land Acquisition Officer, Bikaner in 1997-98, pursuant to the judgment in Dalit Manch (supra). On 6.6.2003, the District Collector by a letter stated that since the records were not available for verification, the compensation could not be granted. A similar letter was written by the Tehsildar too. The writ petitioners alleged that their lands along with the lands of others were acquired by the State of Rajasthan for use by the Union Ministry of Defence i.e. for Military and Air Force purposes. The allegation levelled was that no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated and that the land in the area in and around village Udasar and Anoopsagar of Bikaner were forcibly taken away and occupied in 1983. This action by the respondents, especially the State, became the subject matter of proceedings in Dalit Manch (supra). The Court in Dalit Manch (supra) was of the opinion that the Central Government action in taking over possession of lands without paying compensation was contrary to law.
3. It was submitted that the benefits of the judgment in Dalit Manch (supra) were not confined to individuals and the writ petitioners who approached the Court, but also to others situated in identical circumstances. The Court in Dalit Manch (supra) had observed as follows:-
"However, it is now the military land which stands acquired and the same is also being used for cantonment areas, therefore, whether the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition were followed or not, the acquisition is now complete and a fate accomplice. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by directing the respondents to follow the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition for the purpose of acquisition. The question remains only with regard to compensation to be paid to the members of the petitioners organisation.
Therefore, I direct the respondents No. 2 to 4 to decide the question of compensation which may be payable to each of the persons whose land had been taken for the purpose of cantonment area, particularly the persons whose names have been mentioned in Annexure-2 and looking to the quality of land and other considerations, the compensation which may be payable to each of them may be determined and may be paid out of the amount which the State Government has already received from the Central Government. For this purpose, the concerned persons, members of the petitioner organisation or any other persons who were entitled to get the compensation or did not accept the alternative land will file their claims before the concerned authorities within a period of two months from the date the copy of the order is made available to the concerned authorities by the claimants and thereafter within a period of four months the claims shall be decided and the amount of compensation shall be determined in accordance with extent law and paid to such claimants.
This writ petition is accordingly allowed in the manner indicated above, with no order as to costs."
4. It was submitted that all the petitioners and others-numbering 24, preferred their claims containing particulars of the lands from which they were dispossessed. However, the respondent-State authorities took no action and consequently, they could not receive compensation. The petitioners also relied upon an order made in S.B.CWP No. 4232/1998 Dau Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer-Sub Divisional officer (North), Bikaner where the Court directed the respondent-State to pass the award and pa
