JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - In the proceedings taken up before the Coordinate Bench, the High Court has in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 10130/2014, the Court has passed following order:

"The reply to the writ petition has been filed today and is taken on record.

With consent of the parties, writ petition has been heard finally.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the resolution dated 17th June, 2014, taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board.

It is a case where a land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894"). An award was passed where compensation was ordered to be given to one party, as alleged by learned counsel for petitioner. A revenue suit for partition of the land was thus preferred by the petitioner to get compensation of 1/9 share in the land, so acquired. The Rajasthan Housing Board was made party to it but suit qua them was dismissed as issue of apportionment of compensation cannot be determined in the suit for partition.

The petitioner then invoked provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1894 and maintained a reference. The issue of apportionment of land to the extent of claim of the petitioner would be determined therein. The petitioners even preferred a writ petition earlier and has been decided by this court on 15th April, 2014 with certain directions. After the judgment aforesaid, the respondents proceeded in the matter with intention to allot plot of land to other shareholders of the land. The process was taken up at the instance of Secretary of Legislative Assembly having no competence for it.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that when reference is pending to claim 1/9 share in the land and the compensation would not be paid in cash but with allotment of land, the official respondents should not have proceeded with the matter. If at all land is to be allotted, it should be after keeping 1/9 share for the petitioners, pending reference.

It is further stated that reference is pending for last many years thus while protecting rights of the petitioners to the extent of share claimed by them, a direction may be given to the court concerned to decide the reference at the earliest.

Learned counsel for respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that Housing Board is not allotting the land ignoring the claim made by the petitioners. They have taken a decision to allot two pattas separately, out of which, one would be for 8/9 share and other for 1/9 share. The allotment of land for 1/9 share would not be made till disposal of the reference, rather, it would be kept pending. In view of above, challenge to the proceedings is not sustainable and in any case, with the clarity aforesaid, writ petition may be disposed of.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that after the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, an award was passed. The dispute was raised by the petitioners about their share, said to have been ignored by the Land Acquisition Officer. A suit for partition was preferred followed by reference under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. The reference is sought for apportionment of compensation. The petitioners' claim is for 1/9 share in the land acquired by the respondents.

In view of above, I find justification in the suggestion given by the counsel appearing for Rajasthan Housing Board inasmuch as they can issue patta for 8/9 share of the land acquired leaving patta of 1/9 share of the land. The patta for 1/9 share may be issued subject to outcome of the reference preferred by the petitioner. By the aforesaid, rights of the petitioners would be protected till disposal of the reference and at the same time, compensation would be awarded to the extent, no dispute exists.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board not to issue patta for 1/9 share of the land acquired while issuing