JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

1. In all these three petitions, the propriety land of the petitioners was taken by the respondents without payment of compensation, as such, they are taken up together for consideration. The contention of the petitioners in all the three petitions is that their land was taken by the respondents for setting up Tube Well and other public utilities on the assurance of employment to one of their family member without payment of compensation.

2. While considering these petitions, this Court, vide order dated 17.05.2022 observed that important questions arise for consideration, firstly, whether the land donated by the petitioners by execution of a gift deed in favour of Government or Government functionaries can be said to be a valid legal document, considering the constitutional provisions, and whether the Government would at all accept a gift deed in its name by its citizens. Secondly, whether the gift deed made in favour of the Government could be held to be a valid, inasmuch as, a gift deed is to be inter vivos to be a valid gift deed.

3. Mr. A.P. Singh,