[2026:RJ-JP:1922]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10040/2021

1. Kanaram Son Of Rupa @ruplya, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Amrabad, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa.

2. Heeralal Son Of Rupa @ruplya, Resident Of Village Amrabad, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Competent Authority (L.A.O.) Cum S.D.O., Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa

2. Gopilal Son Of Rupa @ Ruplya, Resident Of Village Amrabad, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa.

3. Laluram Son Of Rupa @ Ruplya, Resident Of Village Amrabad, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa.

4. Harlal Son Of Rupa @ Ruplya, Resident Of Village Amrabad, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan.

Mr. Anil Agarwal for Mr. V.S. Chauhan.

Ms. Vijay Laxmi and Mr. Umesh Chaudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

16/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award of Land Acquisition Officer, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer has decided the dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and structure of the petitioner and his brothers. There was a settlement among the family members with regard to the property under the Acquisition and as per the settlement, all the parties to the settlement were reflected in the revenue records and the compensation in respect of land is also apportioned accordingly. However, while awarding the compensation, in respect of structures instead of awarding the apportionment as per the family settlement, the compensation was apportioned among the respondents No. 2 to 4 excluding the petitioner.

3. Such an apportionment was done in spite of there is no such rival claim from the respondents No. 2 to 4 and the same was done suo moto by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner sought a reference and the matter was also referred.

4. This writ petition was filed, before the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. By way of interim orders, this Court granted stay on the disbursal of the amount in respect of the structures in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4. While pending the present writ petition, an application was made by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court for withdrawal of the reference in the background of the present writ petition.

5. The grievance of all the parties before this Court is that the reference could not have been withdrawn and further it is none of the case of the parties to the family settlement that they are exclusively entitled for compensation and the compensation has to be apportioned according to the family settlement only in the same manner, in which, the compensation was apportioned in respect of the land.

6. Before this Court also, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the private respondents i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4 have agreed that they have no grievance with regard to payment of compensation as per the family settlement and there only grievance is that instead of directing the Land Acquisition Officer to modify the Award, the direction may be issued to the Reference Court to restore the Reference by setting aside the withdrawal order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the concerned Reference Court, though which is not challenged.

7. This Court finds that the Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding compensation differently for land and structure when there was a consensus among the parties to the family settlement to pay the compensation for the the land and structure, which are under acquisition. Though, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation relating to the land as stated in the family settlement, surprisingly, he has not recognized such f