IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Nupur Bhati, J.
Raj Kumar, S/o Late Bansi Lal Kothari and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, udaipur and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3782 of 2010
Decided On : 06-11-2023
Abadi Land - Land Allotment - Rajasthan Municipality Act 1959, Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - [Rajasthan Municipality Act 1959, Article 226, Article 227]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as Khatedars of certain land, surrendered their land for the expansion of a Public Health Centre in exchange for Abadi land. The Municipal Board declined to allot Abadi land to the petitioners, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had agreed to give the petitioners Abadi land in exchange for the surrendered land, and the petitioners had surrendered the land on this condition. The court held that the Municipal Board's decision to decline the allotment of Abadi land was unjust and illegal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Municipal Board was bound to allot Abadi land to the petitioners in exchange for the surrendered land, as agreed upon by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the respondents had agreed to give the petitioners Abadi land in exchange for the surrendered land, and the petitioners had surrendered the land on this condition, the Municipal Board's decision to decline the allotment of Abadi land was unjust and illegal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to allot the petitioners Abadi land in exchange for the surrendered land within one month.
JUDGMENT :
1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Orders on Interim Application’ Category but on the joint request of both the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself.
2. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming following reliefs:
that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a writ, order or direction, the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to allot Abadi land to the petitioners in exchange of their land as agreed between the parties.
In the alternative, the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to make payment of cost of the land to the petitioners as per the present market rate of the land of the petitioners or the agreed Abadi land which was to be allotted to them.
Any other appropriate order or direction which is found just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the Khatedars of the land bearing Aaraji Nos. 1036 and 1037 situated in village Sanwad, tehsil Mawli, district Udaipur, which are in the names of the petitioners No.1 and 2.
4. On 30.3.2007, for extension of the building of Public Health Centre, Sanwad for raising construction of quarters and other facilities under the Nation Rural Health Mission Scheme, land was required to be made available to the Municipal Board, for which a sanction of Rs.43 lacs was made by the State Government. Since the vacant land was not found available and in absence thereof the amount of Rs.43 lacs sanctioned by the State Government was required to be returned, therefore, it was decided to have a site inspection regarding availability of suitable land adjacent to Public Health Centre and for submission of the report. In pursuance of the decision dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure-3), it was decided that Aaraji No. 1036 and 1037 belonging to the petitioners are nearer to the Public Health Centre and on 27.2.2008, by a proposal, it was decided that the land of the aforesaid Khatedars may be taken as per the mutual consent for the consideration of cost or allotment of Aabadi land. For that purpose, the consent was taken from the competent authority and permission was also given by the Administration and finance departments and for that purpose, the Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board were authorized to do so.
5. Thereafter on 11.4.2008 in Municipality Fatehnagar Sanwad Office report (Annexure-1) it was mentioned that Aaraji Nos. 1036 and 1037 are in the names of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and it was decided that proposals be sent to the petitioners for giving their land for construction of the building for Public Health Centre in exchange of the cost or Aabadi land. In pursuance thereto, the proposals were sent to the petitioners and the petitioners showed their readiness regarding that proposal for allotment of Aabadi land of the Municipality in exchange of their land. Thereafter the land of the petitioners measuring 4737 and 8500 square feet, total 13237 square feet was taken.
6. In the General Meeting of the Municipal Board a report dated 2.3.2007 regarding proposal No.2 was passed wherein the letter of the Municipal Board dated 7.3.2007 (Annx.2.) was issued wherein it has been mentioned that as for construction of building for the Public Health Centre, Rs.46,00,000/-have been sanctioned by the State Government and in absence of land, the amount will be returned to the Government and therefore it was decided that the land of the Khatedars situated near the Public Health Centre may be acquired and made available to the Municipal Board for which administrative and financial sanction was taken.
7. A letter dated 30.3.2007, (Annx.3.) was issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board to the Patwari of the area for making site inspection of the land situated adjacent to the Public Health Centre. The Chairman and the Executive Officer, vide letter dated 7.3.2008 (Annx.4.) in consequence of the meeting dated
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
AI
The court affirmed that the failure to allot equivalent land or provide compensation for lost property violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The court emphasized the limitations on land allotment to educational institutions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the discretionary power of the State Government i....
The judgment establishes the importance of proving actual land allotment and possession in cases of rehabilitation schemes and the validity of administrative orders changing land use.
When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwh....
Resolution by the Land Management Committee for land allotment without approval from the S.D.M. lacks legal validity, leading to unlawful possession claims.
The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.
A concluded contract requires mutual agreement on essential terms, including payment and delivery, without which claims to the land become unenforceable.
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.