Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 2296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Chhatar Singh and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 766 of 2020
Decided On : 31-05-2023
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit and Mr. Manish Bhunwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG Mr. Dalip Rajvi, Mr. Ankur Mathur, Advocates.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5, 5A, 6, and 18 - Writ petition under Article 226 - Petitioners, recorded khatedars, challenge the respondents' actions regarding land acquisition for a bye-pass/ring road, claiming excess land is being taken without proper procedure. Court highlights the statutory remedy under Section 18 as suitable for grievances regarding compensation and land measurement. Dismissed the writ petition finding alternative remedies were available and effective. (Paras 6, 12, 18)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court must refrain from interfering when an alternative, efficacious remedy exists within the statutory framework. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners hold rights over land and challenge acquisition notifications issued by the JDA for a public project. They claimed excess land was being taken without due process and adequate compensation.
Findings of Court:
High Court found adequate statutory remedies existed for addressing the petitioners' grievances under the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory alternative remedy is available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that established principles indicate that an alternative statutory remedy must be pursued before seeking extraordinary relief under writ jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of land acquisition and ongoing disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. allegations of inadequate response from respondents. (Para 7) |
| 3. petitioners argue for inadequate compensation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. respondents argue against the petitioners' claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court observes need for alternative remedies. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 6. reiterates the importance of alternate statutory remedies. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 7. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
(Nupur Bhati, J.)
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:-
"i. The respondent may kindly be directed not to disturb possession and residence etc over the land admeasuring 3 bighas 16 biswas as indicated in para 6 of the writ petition in relation to land of khasra No 255 to 259 of village Indroka Khinchiya, Tehsil and District Jodhpur.
ii. The impugned acts and omissions committed by respondents, whereby the respondents affixed mutams/pillars over the disputed land without acquisition and contrary to approved plan may kindly be quashed and deprecated and further the respondents may kindly be directed to remove such Mutams at their own costs and in the alternate
iii. That respondents may kindly be directed not to disturb possession of petitioners over the excess land 03 bighas and 16 biswas as mentioned in Para 6 of the writ petition and further in the alternate if it is found necessary for development of project in question, then, the respondents may kindly be directed to acquire and pay compensation to the petitioners for aforesaid land while complying the provisions of Act of 2013.
iv Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
v. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the co-sharers and recorded khatedars of the land bearing Khasra No.255 to 259. Since the respondent-JDA planned to construct bye-pass/ring road from Jodhpur-Jaisalmer Highway to Jodhpur- Nagore Highway, therefore, it issued a notification dated 18.03.2013 (Annex.2) under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') for acquisition of the land in question. The petitioners raised objections under Section 5 A of the Act of 1894 and submitted that the land in question is not suitable for acquisition to fulfill the alleged public purpose. The petitioners also submitted representations/ applications but the respondents, without considering the same, issued notification dated 08.07.2013 (Annex.3) under Section 5 of the Act of 1894 and public notice dated 02.09.2015 under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. The respondents, however, failed to determine adequate compensation, therefore, the petitioners preferred a writ petition, being SBCWP No.13132/2019 before this Court, wherein following order was passed on 25.09.2019:-
"Admit. Isue notice.
Notices to be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner.
No case for grant of stay is made out, therefore, stay application is dismissed.
As far as addition land of 2 bighas, which according to petitioner is being taken for construction of highway, petitioner shall be free to take appropriate proceedings on the basis of survey/fard mauka report dated 29.07.2019."
3. It was alleged in the aforementioned writ petition that the respondents are in process to take possession of excess land ad-measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas in view of the site report dated 29.07.2019 (Annex.5) and since this Court directed to take appropriate proceedings on the basis of the said survey report dated 29.07.2019 (Annex.5), therefore, the present writ petition has been filed wherein, while issuing notices, on 03.03.2021, the stay application was dismissed.
4. The petitioners thereafter requested the re
