Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 28263
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
RAM SAHAI MEMMORIAL KALYAN SANSTHAN – Appellant
Versus
PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
CW / 20118 / 2019
The court affirmed that disputes regarding land classification and compensation should be resolved through administrative channels rather than judicial intervention.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 26 - Writ petition filed for compensation determination of land acquired by NHAI - Dispute over land classification as industrial or agricultural - Prior orders from District Collector allowed treating land as industrial, but later findings reverted it to agricultural classification. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Additional District Judge lacked jurisdiction to decide matters relating to land acquisition under the Act of 1956. (Para 4)
(C) Remedy - The petitioner was directed to approach the District Collector for redressal of grievances instead of filing a writ petition. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compensation for land acquired by NHAI, claiming it should be classified as industrial land. The District Collector initially allowed this, but subsequent findings reverted it to agricultural land.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the petitioner should seek resolution from the District Collector rather than the court.
Issues: The core issue was the classification of the land as industrial versus agricultural.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner must utilize the administrative process for grievance redressal rather than seeking judicial intervention prematurely.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the District Collector.
Order
1, The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
'It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the relevant record from the office of the SDO-cum-Competent Authority, Lalsot pertaining to the compensation matters so also the proceedings undertaken by the Collector-cum- Arbitrator, Dausa in respect of the awardldirections issued by him pertaining to the land in question, examine the same, quash and set aside the order dt. 14.10.2019 passed by the SDO-cum competent authority, Lalsot thereby maintaining the order dt. 20.9.2017 passed by the Collector, Dausa and also direct the SDO-cum- authority, Lalsot to decide the compensation in resDect of the land in question i.e. khasra No. 267/143 and 268/143 measuring 10 biswa each belonging to the petitioner while treating the land as 'industrial land' and allow the compensation accordingly.
Any other appropriate ordersldirections which are found in the interest of justice and in favour of the petitioner be also issued in favour of the humble petitioner."
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction against the respondents to decide for his compensation in respect of the land in question, while treating the same as industrial land and accordingly the compensation be awarded 4, him.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Highway Authority of India (for short 'NHAI') acquired the land of the petitioner and the nature of the land in question is industrial but the respondents treated the same as agricultural land, hcnce, a dispute was raised before the District Collector, Dausa and the application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the District Collector, Dausa vide order dated 20.09.2017 by treating the nature of the land as industrial and accordingly, the kana Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa was directed to redetermine the amount of compensation, treating the land in question as industrial land. Counsel submits that the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa has passed an order on 26.02.2019, treating the nature of the land as agricultural land 'industrial and the same has not been treated as land. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and a direction be issued to the respondents to [2024:RJ-JP:1394] [CW-20118/2019] award a suitable amount nsation to the petitioner, treating its land as industrial land instead of agriculture land.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and the NHAI was not impleaded as a party respondent. Counsel submitted that the correct facts were not brought into notice of the District Collector, Dausa, hence, a review petition was filed before the District Collector, ~ausa and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 21.03.2018 and the matter was remitted back to the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa to decide the objections, raised by the respondents and pass the order for payment of compensation accordingly. Counsel submitted that pursuant to the subsequent order dated 21.03.2018, the matter was re-examined by the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa, wherein a categorical finding was recorded that the land was acquired by the NHAI and the land in question was falling within 40 meters and the nature of such land cannot be converted and cannot be treated as industrial land and, accordingly, the nature of the land is treated as agricultural land. Counsel submitted that thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa sent a reference to the Additional District Judge, Lalsot for passing the appropriate orders for grant of compensation. Counsel submitted that tho
