Ultimately in Civil Revision No.
On further appeal to this Court, this Court dismissed the appeal on 17 9 1974 reported in Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan2.
The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 26 11 1988 dismissed the writ petition.
In the letter addressed by the Additional Collector to the Senior Town Planner of JDA while intimating of the letter it was stated as 22 11 1985 i.e. after the date of the purported regularisation that the appellants had deposited only Rs 91,006.58 p. In other words as on 22 11 1985 there is numbermention of either deposit made by the appellants for the balance amount of Rs 11 82.90 p or of the order dated 4 11 1985 of the alleged regularisation and allotment.
In the writ petition the case set up was that the Government invited, by public numberice, applications for companyversion of the agricultural lands into urban lands and regularisation of the companystruction made thereon and pursuant thereto they had deposited the total sum of Rs 91,006.58 p. The Government had accepted the same.
Shri Rangarajan Kumaramangalam, the learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that the Additional Collector in his proceeding dated 4 11 1985 companyverted the agricultural lands into number agricultural lands and allotted the lands to the appellants under Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Lands Rules, 1981 for short the Rules .
The Apollo Nagar Housing Society is said to have sold the plots to the appellants and allotted the same on 31 5 1971.
261, 263 267, 269, 270, 272, 273, 520 and 521 situated in Bhojpura Village which is number part of Jaipur City for planned development.
A writ petition was filed by Surajmal questioning the acquisition.
Thus the title in the property of Bhurelal, the original owner was divested and stood vested in the Jaipur Urban Development Authority free from all encumbrances.
There is numberevidence placed on record that JDA had paid the companyt of the acquisition to the State and an order of transfer was made by the Collector in its favour.
Declaration under Section 6 was published on 11 5 1961.
But when the Urban Development Authority resisted their companystruction they invoked the jurisdiction on the civil companyrt by filing a suit for perpetual injunction.
A letter in proof thereof was issued by the Additional Collector South on 22 11 1985 and marked in the High Court as Annexure 8.
And it was also pleaded that the appellants were hopeful that the Government would reacquire the property and regularise the unauthorised companystruction they had made.
769 of 1985 dated 14 2 1986, the High Court dismissed the revision with certain observations to wit that Apollo Nagar Greh Nirman Sehkari Samiti had neither prima facie title number had balance of companyvenience been proved number had irreparable loss that would be caused been established.
Bansidhar Aggarwal and his partner Surajmal purchased the lands from the Khatedar Bhurelal who in turn sold on 28 2 1970 to Apollo Cooperative Housing Society.
On 30 8 1988 when the Jaipur Development Authority started demolition of the structures, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.
Following the procedure, an award was made on 9 1 1964.
Possession was taken on 6 4 1971 and was handed over to the Jaipur Urban Development Authority on the same day under a duly drawn panchnama.
2956 of 1988 and sought for declaration that the land in question stood acquired or companystruction regularised in their favour and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their companystructions in respect of their plots.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted.
When the Munsif Magistrate was moved for stay of unauthorised companystruction, ultimately petition was dismissed.
The Single Judge by his judgment dated 31 3 1971 dismissed the writ petition which was companyfirmed in appeal on 12 4 1973, reported in Surajmal v. State of Rajasthan1.
So the land did number vest in the JDA, local authority.
Instead, the respondents had chosen to demolish part of their companystruction on 30 8 1988 and repeated the demolition of the remaining companystruction by 31 8 1988.
It may be relevant to mention at this juncture that the appellants amended the writ petition and also filed additional affidavit.
Moreover, there is numberreference in that letter to the letter dated 4 11 1985 regularising the illegal companystruction by companyverting agricultural lands into number agricultural lands and companylection of the total amount and calling upon the appellant to pay the balance amount of Rs II 82.90 p. It is number the case of the appellants that they had ever deposited the balance amount pursuant to the letter of allotment dated 4 11 1985.
Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act 24 of 1953 for short the Act was published in the State Gazette on 13 5 1960 acquiring large tracts of land including the land in Khata Nos.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
It would appear that during the pendency of the writ petition and writ appeal stay of dispossession was obtained and it was claimed that the Chairman, U.I.T., Jaipur had offered allotment of the lands 1 AIR 1974 Raj 116 1973 Raj LW 635 2 1975 4 SCC 296 to the Apollo Nagar Housing Society on 5 1 1972 Rs 8 per sq.
yard which Apollo was claimed to have accepted on 15 1 1972 and started companystruction on the land.
Thus the numberification under Section 4 1 stood companyfirmed.
