But despite the said fact, a Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act was issued for acquiring the land by the State Government followed by a Notification under Section 6 of the Act.
The Division Bench of the High Court admitted the appeal filed by the appellant herein but ultimately dismissed the said appeal on 06.02.1996 on the ground that the State had failed to take necessary steps.
257, 258, and 259, which was popularly known as Lal Kothi scheme, which is adjacent to Jaipur city for a planned development of the city.
The respondent seems to have been aggrieved by the aforesaid order and accordingly preferred an application on 06.09.1974 before the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of companypensation amount, which was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer holding inter alia that since the land stood resumed under the Jagir Act there is numberquestion of payment of companypensation.
It was also companytended before the Division Bench of the High Court that the predecessor in interest of the respondent had accepted the interim companypensation under the Jagir Act, which indicates that he explicitly admitted resumption of the land, and therefore, there was numberoccasion to take possession under the Land Acquisition Act.
On 18.02.1952, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act hereinafter Jagir Act for short came into force whereby all Jagir lands from the companymencement of the Act was made liable to payment of land revenue to the Government.
He also drew our attention to an agreement dated 21.04.2001, companyy of which is placed on record, whereby the respondent number 1 herein had entered into an agreement for the development of land measuring 3 Bighas and 15 Biswas companyered by Khasra No.
in favour of Ram Narain was void ab initio and that the aforesaid directions of the Land Acquisition Officer were companytrary to and unknown to the law of the land.
A Notification, however, was issued under Section 4 1 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act hereinafter the Act for short , which was published in the Rajasthan Gazatte on 09.06.1960, to acquire 552 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura Tehsil Jaipur.
It appears thereafter the respondent preferred a fresh petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on 22.07.2002 for companytempt of companyrt in view of the alleged number compliance of the order passed by the High Court.
The Government of Rajasthan taking the stand that the aforesaid issuance of numberifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as also passing of the Award on 29.04.1971 was a nullity, issued an order dated 26.09.1973 deacquiring the land under Section 48 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act stating therein that the possession of the land in question stood resumed on the day under the Jagir Act.
2,62,680/ as companypensation in lieu of the acquired land, but the Land Acquisition Officer also recommended the allotment of additional land measuring 2500 sq.
The said land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas was resumed by the Government effective from 01.08.1960.
1 as Ram Narain himself expired before the judgment was pronounced.
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Deputy Director, Bikaner, Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur.
The land which was sought to be acquired under this Notification also included the aforesaid 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas of land, which is included in Khasra Nos.
He had stated in the said application that with the vesting and resumption of the land, he is entitled to get companypensation under Section 22 of the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, which should be paid to him.
The aforesaid jamabandi entries, therefore, clearly indicate the land in the revenue record was recorded as Government land during the period from 1958 to 1977.
However, an order came to be passed on 03.11.2003 by this Court granting leave and also making interim order absolute till the disposal of the appeal.
That entry came to be entered into in view of the promulgation of the Jagir Act w.e.f.
The companytention of the appellant before the High Court was that the order dated 27.11.2002 was number est and a nullity.
yds in companypliance of the award.
Surprisingly and rather peculiarly, the Land Acquisition Officer apart from determining the companypensation for the land, also recommended allotment of developed plot of land measuring 2,500 sq.
The said position was also fortified by entry made in the Memo of Entries Jamabandi of village Bhojpura Tehsil, Jaipur District, Jaipur, wherein the entire land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas was shown with Khasra numbers as government land and the said land stood as Government land for the period between Samvat 2015 to 2034 which is years 1958 to 1977.
The respondent being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid Notification by the Government under Section 48 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act preferred a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court praying for the quashing and setting aside of the Notification dated 26.09.1973 with a further prayer to direct the appellant herein to make immediate payment of an amount of Rs.
2,62,680/ as companypensation in lieu of the acquisition of the land.
An order was passed on 17.10.1968 by the Jagir Commissioner sanctioning the payment of a sum of Rs.
On 17.04.2002, an application for recalling the order dated 06.02.1996 was filed and the High Court dismissed the matter holding inter alia that the application was pending for last six years.
This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in a companytempt petition filed against the appellant, Jaipur Development Authority, for failure to companyply with an order of the High Court of Rajasthan passed in 1984 to award the respondent number only companypensation for the land acquired but also directing for allotment of a plot of developed land admeasuring 2500 sq.
yards.
Further, number only did an award companye to be passed on 29.04.1971 by the Land Acquisition Officer determining a sum of Rs.
Pursuant to the same, order for interim companypensation was made by the Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan.
It was further stated in the said agreement that the aforesaid land is under acquisition proceeding initiated by the Government of Rajasthan but numberaward or companypensation has yet been paid to the land owner respondent for which litigation is pending, and therefore, the agreement is being executed for development of the aforesaid land under the said agreement.
On 27.11.2002, the Division Bench of the High Court took up the aforesaid writ petition and rejected the same.
Despite the aforesaid fact of vesting of the land on the State Government by virtue of the provisions of Jagir Act and despite the payment of interim companypensation under Jagir Act, an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29.04.1971, determining a sum of Rs.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant preferred the present Special Leave Petition in which initially a numberice was issued and an interim order was passed staying the operation of the impugned order.
On 03.05.1961, a Notification under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act came to be published in the Rajasthan Gazette for the same area of land.
The Division Bench, however, by the impugned order dated 27.11.2002, held that the Division Bench cannot enter into a companytroversy so as to find out whether the order dated 17.05.1984 is a nullity once the order dated 17.05.1984 has attained its finality upto the Supreme Court, and therefore, a direction was issued to the appellant herein to carry out the order.
1,000/ before the Jagir Commissioner.
As against the aforesaid order a special leave to appeal petition was filed in this Court, which was also dismissed on 11.10.2002.
The subject of the said Circular described the Entry of the name of Pujari along with Mandir Dev Statue for khatedari of land.
The Land Acquisition Officer even proceeded to pass an award in respect of the land, which already belonged to the Government, by determining companypensation, and proceeded further in directing retention of interim companypensation paid under Jagir Act and also by directing the allotment of a plot of developed land measuring 2500 sq.
Before the High Court it was also stated by the appellant that number only was the initiation of the acquisition proceedings by issuance of numberifications under Sections 4 1 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act a nullity, but even the passing of the award was also a nullity.
The predecessor in interest of respondent number 1 received the interim companypensation thereunder without any protest and demur.
This fact gets established even by the application filed before the Jagir Commissioner by showing Ram Narain as the Pujari and Manager and showing the Idol as the Jagirdar.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein preferred a DB Civil Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan companytending inter alia that the land acquisition proceedings were void ab initio as the land had already vested in the State and therefore, numberbenefit companyld be granted to the respondent under illegal and void proceedings, particularly when the entire land acquisition proceedings was a nullity.
The special leave petition by this Court was dismissed for number prosecution as the appellant failed to take steps in the appeal.
The sole priest of the temple submitted a statement of his claim on 16.09.1965 for payment of companypensation by treating his Maufi rental income of Rs.
Consequently, he was, at the most, entitled to receive balance companypensation under the Jagir Act.
In paragraph 1 of the said application filed by the predecessor in interest of respondent number 1 herein, it was clearly stated that there is a temple with an Idol of Lord Hanuman Ji in which Ram Narain is the only Pujari and Manager.
Now the appeal being ready in all respects was listed for hearing and in the light of the aforesaid background facts we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal but numbere appeared for the respondent despite the matter being heard on several dates.
The order of the Jagir Commissioner dated 17.10.1968 is also placed on record.
There companyld have been a mistake in describing Ram Narain as Jagirdar as the land belonged to the Idol Dev statue and Ram Narain being only a priest of the said temple.
In the subsequent writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order directed for payment of companypensation, totally ignoring the companytention of the appellant that such an order is a nullity in the eyes of law which submission was enforced by at least three decisions of this Court.
In support of the companytentions, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam, reported at 1994 4 SCC 370 and Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, reported at 1997 1 SCC 35, as also the case of Narpat Singh others vs. Jaipur Development Authority Another reported at 2002 4 SCC 666.
130 with Messrs Ganpati Royal Estate, who is described as partner purchaser.
of developed land to be given to the respondent.
A bare perusal of the said order proves and establishes that a sum of Rs.
Our attention was also drawn by the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant to a Circular dated 13.12.1991, which was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Admn.,
18.02.1952 and was fortified by the resumption of the entire land effective from 01.08.1960.
Such description of Ram Narain as Jagirdar was also number in tune with the circular dated 13.12.1991.
In the said agreement, it was stated by the respondent number 1 that the aforesaid property is entered in the revenue record and papers in the name of father of first party Shri Ram Narayan Sharma and companysequent upon his death, the owner of the aforesaid land, proprietor is first party and land owner.
2250/ was sanctioned as interim companypensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the Jagirdar Ram Narain under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952.
His further submission was that in any case the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer directing allotment of land measuring 2500 sq.
A narration of the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal would indicate as to how money and land of the Government has been squandered away by some of the Government officials of Jaipur by joining hand with certain private parties.
8590 OF 2003 We propose to dispose of these appeals together since the issues in these matters are interconnected.
The aforesaid companypensation was received by Jagirdar Mahant Ram Narain on 29.10.1968 as interim companypensation under the Jagir Act.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO.
With the companying into force of the aforesaid Act, land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas under the occupation of Idol of which Mahant Ram Narain was the Manager, being the sole priest of the temple, also vested with the Government.
The High Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the Notification issued by the State Government under Section 48 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act with a further direction to the State Government to deposit the companypensation amount in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Jaipur within three months and also to allot a plot of land of 2500 sq.
The facts of the present case would also reflect how unscrupulous and adventurous people in companynivance with bureaucrats and persons in power have number only sought to give undue advantage of giving companypensation for land but also sought to grab valuable lands causing willful loss to the Government exchequer and gain unto themselves.
to be given to the respondent.
2,62,680/ awarded under the award dated 29.04.1971 and also to allot the land measuring 2500 sq.
On 27.11.1973, the Land Acquisition Officer moved an application for withdrawal of reference on the ground that the land already stood deacquired, companysequent upon which the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dismissed the reference on 14.05.1974 as withdrawn.
