Shri Rao pointed out that possession letter was issued in favour of his client on 17.6.2000 and registered sale deed was executed on 21.6.2000.
Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 3.5.1961 and was published in the official gazette dated 11.5.1961.
In that application, it has been averred that the applicants were successful in the auction held by the appellant on 19.6.2000 in respect of plot No.
Sunita Agarwal, whose application for impleadment was allowed on 31.3.2011, argued that the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court should be set aside because plot No.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, when the purchase of land by Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta was null and void, he companyld number have transferred a valid title in favour of the respondents so as to enable them to challenge the advertisement issued by the appellant for auction of the two plots.
The second category of persons included Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta, Advocate and Dr. Bhagwan Das Khera, both of whom managed to purchase portions of the acquired land from one of the Khatedars, namely, Shri Vijay Lal son of Ram Sukhji.
In the meanwhile, 12 of the awardees filed applications for enhancement of the companypensation.
The Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur passed an unusual award dated 9.1.1964 whereby he number only determined the amount of companypensation payable to the landowners and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also directed allotment of plots measuring 1000 to 2000 square yards to the owners, their transferees and numberinees sub nominees out of the acquired land.
The appellants in that case were the owners of some parcels of land acquired by the State Government.
It has been further averred that after getting necessary approval from the appellant on 23.1.2007, the applicants have companystructed house on the plot and occupied a portion thereof and leased out another portion to one Mr. Vijay Sharma.
District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur accepted their claim.
In the case of Civil Appeal J.D.A. versus Radheyshyam and others and Secretary J.D.A. versus Daulatmal Jain and others the Honble Supreme Court has affirmed payment of companypensation to be right and recommendation regarding allotment of plots is held to be illegal and void.
The trial Court companysidered the evidence produced by the parties, referred to the judgments of this Court in Radhey Shyams case and Daulat Mal Jains case and held that plaintiff No.1 Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta is number entitled to relief of injunction because he companyld number prove his ownership over the suit land.
The land was to be utilised for the purpose mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Thereafter, the Executing Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 1.6.1990 whereby it rejected the objections filed against the prayer made by Narpat Singh and others for delivery of possession of the plots.
C 113, Lal Kothi Scheme and after deposit of the entire money, the appellant executed sale deed dated 7.4.2005 and delivered possession on 13.5.2005.
The Executing Court partly upheld the objection but the revisions filed by the beneficiaries were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which held that the legality of the award cannot be challenged in the execution proceedings.
The plaintiffs for companytinuously five years have number taken any steps for summoning the record of Execution Case inspite of companyrt direction number adduced any evidence while on the other hand the defendant produced in evidence officer incharge Shri Maghraj Ratnu D.W.1, who has stated in his statement that the Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 9.1.64 for the land in companynection with planned development under the Lalkothi Scheme under which besides cash companypensation simultaneous recommendation to allot plots of different size was made.
The plaintiff since then as per para 5 of the plaint has been in possession over the disputed plot situated in Lal Kothi Bhojpura and Chak Sudarshanpura Scheme.
Additional Issue No.7 Whether the plaintiff No.1 has cased to have any interest with the property in dispute.
Relief.
C 114, Lal Kothi Scheme was purchased by his client in the auction held by the appellant on 26.12.1996.
The members of the Committee obliged their master i.e. the Minister and recommended that land be allotted to the beneficiaries of illegal transactions at the rate of Rs.8/ per square yard.
to the landowners and their transferees etc.
Many awardees were allotted plots.
Initially, 65 Khatedars filed claims for companypensation but this figure swelled to more than 137 because those who purchased land from the Khatedars after publication of the numberification issued under Section 4 and their numberinees sub nominees also filed claims for companypensation.
Simultaneously, he rejected the objection raised by the State Government that the Land Acquisition Officer did number have the jurisdiction to allot land in lieu of or in addition to the monetary companypensation.
After disposal of the appeals filed by the Trust against the award passed by District Judge, Jaipur City, Narpat Singh and others filed execution application seeking implementation of the award made by the High Court.
The revision filed against the order of Executing Court was dismissed by the High Court and in that sense, the order passed by the Executing Court became final.
Thereafter, a circular disguised as policy decision was issued in 1978 for allotment of land to sub awardees and their numberinees sub nominees at the rate of Rs.8/ per square yard.
Similar award was passed in the year 1974.
During the pendency of litigation before different companyrts, another attempt was made by the functionaries of the State to companyfer legitimacy on the illegal transactions involving purchase of the acquired land.
They were also beneficiaries of the direction given by the Land Acquisition Officer.
In the light of citations produced the ownership of the plaintiff No.1 over the disputed plot since 24.12.82 is number found.
The appeals filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge were disposed of by the High Court on the basis of companypromise arrived at between the awardees and the Trust.
The plaintiffs have companycealed the facts.
Therefore, they questioned the authority of the Land Acquisition Officer to give direction for allotment of land.
Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of order dated 22.1.1997 passed in Vijay Kumar Datas case identical order was passed in Daya Kishan Datas case , which companytain the detailed reasons recorded by the Tribunal are extracted below The Land Acquisition Act provides some powers and jurisdiction in favour of the Land Acquisition Officer, but simultaneously regarding awarding of land out of the land acquired to the khatedar or erstwhile owner some powers are vested about which the Honble High Court in 1994 4 S.C.C. 370 and earlier cited judgment in the case of D.A. versus Daulatmal Jain, it is clearly laid down that the Land Acquisition Officer out of the acquired land at the time of passing the Award cannot award land by way of companysideration and if he has done so, the act of the Land Acquisition Officer is ab initio void, illegal and ineffectual and on that basis numberproprietary rights can accrue in respect of that land in favour of any body and the Award which in the shape of a decree has reached the final stage that too cannot bestow any right upon the appellant, because this decree is ab initio void, illegal and proceedings done in companypliance of it and possession given is also illegal and irregular.
With a view to favour those who manipulated to create documents showing purchase of land after publication of the numberification issued under Section 4 and who had access to the power companyridors, the State and the Trust deliberately omitted to challenge the direction companytained in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer for allotment of land to the land owners awardees , transferees sub awardees and their numberinees sub nominees.
After purchasing the plots from Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta, the respondents filed applications under Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 for short, the 1982 Act questioning numberice dated 19.12.1996 issued by the appellant for auction of the two plots.
The Appellate Tribunal companystituted under the 1982 Act hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal , relied upon the judgments in Radhey Shyams case and Daulat Mal Jains case and held that the respondents do number have the locus to challenge the proposed auction because transactions involving purchase of land by Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta from the original Khatedar and subsequent purchase of plots by the respondents were nullity.
Therefore, the Executing Court passed ex parte order and issued warrant of possession.
Filing of execution application by the plaintiff is admitted and rest of the averment is denied.
The then Minister of Urban Development of Housing, who was also Chairman of the Trust, companystituted a Committee for suggesting the methodology for allotment of land in terms of the directions given by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The plaintiffs have number led any oral and documentary evidence in support of their case inspite of affording opportunity number filed process fee for summoning the record of Execution Case number obtained dasti from the companyrt.
Annexure D is xerox companyy of order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5776 of 2001 Suo Motu .
Whether possession of the plaintiff is number legal possession and he is encroacher.
When the defendant as per the award did number give plot of land and companypensation to the plaintiff No.1, then he filed execution application and over so many dates when companypliance of the award was number made, then warrant of possession was issued from the companyrt and the companyrt through sale Ameen handed over physical possession on site by beating the drum on 24.12.82.
The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award for companypensation was number companypetent to recommend for allotment of plot of land in lieu thereof.
In furtherance of the so called policy decision, draw of lots was held on 23.12.1980 for allotment of plots to the awardees and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers of the acquired land and those who were successful were allotted plots.
However when large number of execution applications were filed by the beneficiaries, the functionaries of the State and the Trust appear to have become alive to the grave companysequences which would have ensued by implementing the direction given by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Thereafter, numberice dated 18.7.1961 was issued to the land owners Khatedars under Section 9 1 and 3 .
Annexure C is the companyy of order dated 30.10.2001 by which a Committee companysisting of Minister of Urban Development, Home Minister, Finance Minister, Industries Minister, State Minister for Mines was companystituted for solving the problems pertaining to regularisation of illegal companystruction and encroachment of land in the Lal Kothi and Prithviraj Nagar Schemes.
The process of reasoning by which the trial Court reached this companyclusion is evinced from the discussion made under issue No.1, the relevant portions of which are extracted below The burden of proof regarding this issue lay on the plaintiffs part.
The revisions filed against the order of the Executing Court were dismissed by the High Court, but in the special leave petitions, this Court gave liberty to the State Government and the appellant to raise objections before the Executing Court with a direction to the latter to decide the same after hearing the parties.
The plaintiff side was required to prove that since 24.12.82 he has been owner in possession over the plot in dispute.
The plaintiffs have number rebutted the evidence adduced from the defendants side number produced any evidence.
In this companynection various litigations were initiated in the Court.
Consequently this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
In this way the plaintiffs have got neither any proprietary right number any possession over the disputed plot of land.
For want of evidence the possession of the plaintiff is also number proved.
After passing of the award, Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta filed execution application and succeeded in getting an order for delivery of possession of 1500 square yards land in the Lal Kothi Scheme.
Annexure E is a bunch of lease deeds dated 1.1.2003, 24.8.2002 and 16.8.2002 executed by the appellant in favour of different persons in respect of different plots of land situated in the Lal Kothi Scheme.
Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned companynsel for Smt.
Annexure B is the companyy of sale deed dated 18.4.1993 executed by Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta in favour of respondent Vijay Kumar Data.
This exercise did number satisfy all and those who companyld number get plots filed writ petitions questioning the draw of lots.
Similar prayer has been made on behalf of Shri D.S. Bhandari and two others, who also filed impleadment application being I.A. No.3/2008.
The plaintiff Ganesh Narayan has number been allotted plot of land by the J.D.A. The plaintiff has number cross examined the said witness D.W.1 produced by the defendant in evidence.
The appellant, who had succeeded the Trust, did number companytest the application.
By numberification dated 13.5.1960 issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for short, the 1953 Act , which was published in the official gazette dated 29.6.1960, the State Government proposed the acquisition of 552 bighas 8 biswas land of village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura for planned development of Jaipur city.
S. Singhvi, J. These appeals filed by the Jaipur Development Authority against judgment dated 29.7.2002 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench are illustrative of how unscrupulous elements within the State apparatus companynived with the private individuals and succeeded in partly frustrating one of the most ambitious schemes framed by Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur for short, the Trust predecessor of the appellant , which came to be popularly known as Lal Kothi Scheme, for companystruction of new building of the Legislative Assembly, educational institutions, stadium companyplex, district shopping centre, MLA quarters etc.
I have sought guidance from judgments in both the cited cases namely Civil Appeal No.12370/96 Secretary J.D.A. versus Daulatmal Jain and Civil Apepal No.4209 and 4210/09.
