[2026:RJ-JD:8657-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1452/2025 Lrs. of Late Sh. Takhat Singh Kothari, son of Shri Nana Lal Ji Kothari through Legal Heir Prashant Kothari son of Late Sh. Takhat Singh Kothari, aged about 37 Years, resident of 432, Bhopalpura Main Road, Udaipur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Urban Improvement Trust Udaipur, through the Secretary.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi Mr. Mahendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit Mr. Ayush Gehlot HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Judgment

Date of conclusion of arguments : 16 ^th February, 2026 Date on which judgment was reserved : 16^th February, 2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment Date of pronouncement : 7 ^th March, 2026 (Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice)

1. The present special appeal assails the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the prayers made by the appellant-writ petitioner were rejected. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors.”¹, holding that the plea of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings does not stand. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that it is an erroneous interpretation taken by the learned Single Judge of the judgment passed in Indore Development Authority (Supra) and infact as per the judgment, the acquisition would lapse. It is stated that an award was passed for acquiring the land in-question on 16.01.2002 and the compensation amount was deposited in the Court on 24.03.2007 and paper possession was taken of the property, actual possession was never taken and the appellant continue to remain in possession of the property.

2. In the year 2007, he filed the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings which were disposed of and the acquisition was upheld vide order dated 18.03.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1796/2007 thereafter he filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.351/2008 and the same was also dismissed on 09.02.2009. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17499/2009 against the said judgment was filed which came to be dismissed on 14.09.2009. Learned counsel submits that after the said acquisition proceedings were attained finality, the new Act known as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force with effect from 01.01.20214 and as per the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, since the

1 (2020) 8 SCC 129 possession had not been taken nor the compensation had been paid, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6347/2014 on 16.09.2014 for declaring the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Interim order had been passed in his favour however, the learned Single Judge in terms of Indore Development Authority (Supra) has dismissed his writ petition. Hence, aggrieved thereto he has preferred this appeal.

3. Learned counsel submits that even as per the judgment passed in Indore Development Authority (Supra), the rights of the appellant-writ petitioner stand protected and then the land acquisition proceedings have shall be treated to have lapsed. In support of his contention he has invited our attention to the various paragraphs of the judgment to submit that more than 5 years 2 months and 8 days had lapsed between the date of award and the date when the amount was deposited in the Court and paper possession taken. Hence, in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act