1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. C. Writ Petition No. 539/2009. (Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.) S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No. 08/2009. (Lala Ram & ors. Vs. Rekha Gupta, Secretary, JDA) Date of Order : 11/01/2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE REPORTABLE Mr. Dinesh Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. S.M.Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr Saransh Saini, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.05 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No. 107/05 (Lala Ram & ors. Vs. JDA). The petitioner has prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. Further, it is prayed that the appeal filed by respondents before the learned Tribunal be dismissed, holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 are the ex-khatedar tenants of Khasra No. 2,8,10,12 and 19/168 situated in village Boyatwal Distt. Jaipur. On 3rd May, 1981 a notification, under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, came to be issued in the Rajasthan Raj Patra. The said acquisition proceedings were initiated with the intention to acquire a total land of 1367 bighas and 13 biswa in revenue villages Niwaru, Mansharampura, Boytawala and Benad. Total area of 238 Bighas of land was 2 acquired in village Boyatwal. Thereafter, another notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was issued for acquiring the aforesaid land for the public purpose of establishing Field Firing Range. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 26.3.83 for the entire land in question. A reference in respect of the land in question finds place at Serial No. 5, 15 and 21 of the tabulation in the Award (Annex.3). Subsequently, cheques drawn in the name of ex-khatedars for payment are said to have been tendered to the Land Acquisition Officer. Only four khatedars had accepted the award money. The possession of the land was taken and handed over to the Army for the purposes. 3. The ex-khatedars not being fully satisfied with the award, had made request to the petitioners for enhancement of compensation. On having been dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and as nothing had been done by the petitioner in regard to the enhancement of compensation, the ex-khetadars had preferred a reference before the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur praying that the quantum of compensation be increased. The learned Civil Judge, Jaipur on 11.9.94 had enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha, along with interest and solatium. Feeling aggrieved of the order made by the Civil Judge, the petitioner authority filed an appeal before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 30th August, 2000. 4. The Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 was 3 amended on 21.5.01 and Section 83(A) came to be inserted whereby the State Government was empowered to form a settlement committee to resolve the disputes between the authority and other persons. Accordingly, a Settlement Committee was constituted on 11.10.01. The amount of compensation @ Rs. 1500/- per bigha only and not at the enhanced rate was deposited in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur. The State of Rajasthan had issued a circular on 7.11.01, in continuation of its policy decision, for providing relief to the Khatedars whose lands had been acquired and award has been passed but no payment of compensation was made. It was decided that they may be allotted 15% developed land in lieu of acquisition either in the same scheme or in the nearest scheme. In the instant case, Vidhyadhar Nagar is the nearest scheme of JDA to the land situated in village Boyatwala. Another circular was issued by the State Government on 13.12.01 considering the fact that persons who were not aware about the allotment of 15% land in lieu of compensation and had not availed the said benefit, may be given one more chance to opt for the same. The cut of date for submitting option by the Khatedars was fixed as 28.2.02. Certain guidelines were also provided in the circular. Under the said guidelines, the land allotted would be residential and ordinarily in the same area where the acquired land was situated and no compensation has been taken by the Khatedar. For the purpose of allotment, under the scheme, the Local Authority was to constitute a committee of three persons, including one public representative. 4 Further circulars were issued on 19.3.02, 26.7.02 and 27.10.05 for the purposes of allotment of developed land where options were not submitted in time. The respondents were not concerned with the subsequent circulars because they had exercised the option in January, 2002. 5. The respondents had submitted their option/ application on 15.1.02 for allotment of 15% land, in terms of circular dated 13.12.01. When nothing was done by the petitioner authority, in pursuance of the aforesaid application, a representation was filed before the Hon'ble Minister, UDH, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur in the month of June, 2003 with the request for allotment of land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme. The respondent State had called for comments in the matter from the petitioner authority. The State Government had also sought information with regard to the non payment of compensation and for not deciding the application of the respondents filed in the month of January, 2002. The State Government had found the case of the respondents suitable for allotment of land and accordingly, the petitioner authority was asked to give details of vacant plots available in Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme. The State of Rajasthan had also appointed a Cabinate Sub-Committee, vide circular dated 30.6.03, to consider the cases pertaining to allotment of 15% of land in lieu of compensation. The respondents and 13 other persons had accordingly, submitted a common representation before the said committee but the same could not be considered since the 5 election process got underway and ultimately there was a change of Government. 6. On 8.9.04, the notification constituting the aforesaid committee was withdrawn and final result by the committee became defunct. Thereafter, on 1st July, 2005, the State Government had issued an order stating, inter alia, that all those who failed to apply within the time prescribed under circular dated 13.12.02, will be allotted 15% of developed land, earmarked in Lalchandpura and Nandpura Scheme. In furtherance thereof, a lottery was held on 20th July, 2005 for allotment to the remaining claimants. The allotment letters were then issued. The respondents, being aggrieved of the said action of the petitioner authority, preferred an appeal (10/05) before the learned Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 18th October, 05, the learned Tribunal had allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner authority to give 15% developed land to the respondents in Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been preferred by the Jaipur Development Authority. 7. It would not be out of place to mention here that one Chotu Ram S/o Chunna Ram, an awardee as the respondent, had filed an appeal (79/03) before the learned Tribunal which was allowed by order dated 18th August, 2003 and the petitioners were directed to allot land to him in Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme. The petitioner authority had then preferred a 6 Writ Petition (144/04). The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 4.1.05. Further, it may be mentioned that the State Level Settlement Committee had also allowed 15% developed plots in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme, while deciding the cases (No. 476 and 479). 8. It was the case of respondents before the learned Tribunal that the petitioner authority had drawn the lots on 20.7.05 for allotment of 15% land in favour of khatedars whose land had been acquired for field firing range, Niwaru, but no notice in this regard was issued to him. Therefore, the respondents had filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal, challenging the order dated 20th July, 2005 as well as the order dated 6th August, 2005 passed by the Jaipur Development Authority whereby letter of reservation was issued in furtherance of the said lottery. 9. Despite of order passed by the Tribunal on 18th October, 2005, when no further steps were taken in compliance thereof, the respondents preferred a Writ Petition (9908/08) before the High Court with the prayer, inter alia, that the JDA be directed to comply with the order passed by the appellate Tribunal. The said writ petition was allowed on 23rd October, 2008 directing the petitioner authority to implement the order passed by the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months. The petitioner authority, then filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court (1879/2008) against the aforesaid 7 order, which was dismissed on 17.11.08. Subsequently, the petitioner authority preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (2901/09) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said appeal, notices were issued on 16.2.09 and an interim order was passed. Meanwhile, the petitioner authority filed a writ petition before the High Court on 17.1.09 challenging the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal. The said writ petition is said to have been misplaced in the office, and thereafter, the present writ petition was re-constituted on 6.3.09. 10. The Special Leave to Petition (2901/09) then came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.7.09, with the observation that the order passed by the Division Bench on 17.11.08 shall be subject to any order in the writ petition filed subsequently (the present writ petition), challenging the order dated 18.10.05 passed by the learned Tribunal. 11. The respondents in their appeal before JDA Tribunal had primarily challenged the order dated 6.8.05, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-12, Jaipur Development Authority. The broad facts given in the appeal were that the respondent appellant had about 69 bigha 7 biswa of land, out of 238 bighas in village Boyatwala, Tehsil and District, Jaipur which was acquired and award was passed on 26.8.1983. Further, it was stated that for the purpose of field firing range at village 8 Boyatwala, land was given to the Army and as per the settlement arrived at between State Government and the Ministry of Defence, Government of India on 8th June, 1980 another land, in place of land at Field Firing Range, Vidhyadharnagar, was to be given in village Boyatwala. The entire expenses with regard to the acquisition was to be born by the State Government and as such, the whole responsibility came to be that of Jaipur Development Authority. As a long period had passed since the said acquisition and the agriculturists had not been compensated that the State Government had issued an order on 13.12.01 that in lieu of the acquired land, 15% of developed land shall be given, for which option should be exercised by 28.2.02. The respondent appellants had exercised their option on 15.1.02 (Annex.R/7) which was much before the cut-off date. It is to be noted that the said application exercising option, was filed on behalf of 13 Khatedars and the present respondents are at Serial No.9 to 13 therein. In so far as other khatedars from Serial No. 1 to 8 are concerned, an order had already been passed by the appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and thereafter, the writ petition filed by the JDA before this Court had also come to be dismissed. It was also stated in the appeal that as per the State Government order dated 26.6.02, land was allotted to influential persons like Inspectors Resort whose lands have been submerged in Jal Mahal. Similarly, on 25.7.2000, land was ordered to be given to Tej Narain Sharma at Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme, in lieu of his Khasra No. 193/391 measuring 11 Bigha 5 9 Biswas at Gram Devari, Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur. It was stated by the respondent-appellants that other persons like Sedu S/o Rugha, Nathu S/o Goru, Moti S/o Nathulal, Hanuman, Ramnath etc., had also been given land in lieu of their land in Gram Boyatwala which had been acquired for the purpose of field firing range. Further, it was stated that the JDA has wrongly mentioned that no land is available at Vidhyadhar Nagar and the same is established from the document on record, particularly that of the reference proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the appeal against the order dated 6.8.05 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-12 be accepted and the subordinate employees of the Deputy Commissioner Zone-12 be restrained by permanent injunction from allotting 15% of developed land, in lieu of land of Khasra Nos. 2,8,10,12 and 19/168, measuing 69 bighas and 7 biswa in village Boyatwala. Further, it was prayed that the land described in Para 7(c) of the appeal may not be disposed of or auctioned or allotted to any other person by the JDA. 12. Along with the appeal and in support of it, the respondent-appellants had filed affidavits; copies of registered sale deed, award, order of the State Government dated 17.11.01, 13.12.01, 17.10.02 and 19.3.03; State Government notification dated 13.12.01; the settlement arrived between the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and State Government, the judgments dated 18.8.03 and 20.10.03 passed by the 10 Tribunal, JDA; the copy of the judgment passed by the High Court on 4.1.05; the order of the State Government dated 26.6.02 giving 50% of the developed land to Inspectors Resort and the allotment order dated 27.6.02 whereby the land was allotted in favour of Nathu Ram, Motiram and Hanuman in lieu of acquisition of their land for the purpose of field firing range. 13. The petitioner-respondent had filed reply before the Tribunal, to the appeal submitted by the Khatedars (Annex.10). It was stated in the reply that the land was acquired in village Niwaroo, Mansrampura, Boyatwala and Benad. An award was passed on 26th March, 1983 @ Rs. 1500/- per bigha. The khatedars-appellants had gone for reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the quantum of compensation and the learned Civil Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. Further, it was stated that the cheques in respect of the award had been deposited in the civil court and the khatedars had not accepted the same. As the awardees had not accepted the amount of compensation and in order to settle the dispute, 15% of developed land in lieu of compensation was decided to be given, as per the Cabinate sub- committee of the State of Rajasthan. In furtherance of the orders of the State Government dated 1.7.05, land had been allotted to the Khatedars in village, Anantpura/ Lalchandpura by drawing of lottery. It was also stated in the reply that the Land Acquisition Officer has no legal authority to give land in lieu of compensation. According to JDA, allotment of land has 11 already been done to the Khatedar appellants in village Lal Chand Pura and Anantpura Schemes. The order passed by the State Government on 13.12.01 was not denied by the JDA but had stated that the khatedars had been allotted developed land, 15% of the land acquired at village Lal Chand Pura and Anant Pura. Further, it was stated in the reply that the khatedar- appellants do not have any right to be allotted land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme. Therefore, it was requested that the appeal be dismissed with costs. 14. Accordingly, the case of the khatedar appellants before the learned Tribunal was that their land was acquired and award was passed on 26.8.83 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953. It was contended that the land acquired at Village Boyatwala was given to the army and in place of it, the land of field firing range at Vidhyadharnagar Scheme, Jaipur vested with the State Government, as per the settlement between the two. It was prayed that as per the order of the State Government dated 13.12.01, developed land, 15% of the land acquired, should be given to the Khatedars in lieu of compensation. Therefore, the khatedars have right to be allotted land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme for which they have already exercised their option. On the basis of the earlier decision given by the Tribunal, which was upheld upto to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Khatedar appellants claimed for allotment of land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme. Moreover, it was 12 contended that many people whose land did not fall within the area of field firing range, have also been given land in Vidhyadharnagar in lieu of compensation for acquisition. Such allotments have been made to benefit some persons even though their land, which was acquired, had been situated at other places. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended before the Tribunal that even though the land, in place of field firing range at Vidhyadharnagar scheme, was given to the defence, the khatedars whose land was acquired at Boyatwala have no right for allotment of land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme. The khatedars have been allotted land at Anantpura and Lalchand Pura with the approval of the State Government, and JDA is bound by such orders. In respect of the earlier order of the Tribunal, it was stated that an appeal before the Division Bench is pending. Hence, the petitioners had submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 15. The learned Tribunal, having considered the contentions and pleadings of rival parties and the material on record, held that the land was acquired in village Boyatwala for field firing range and in place of it, the Ministry of Defence had handed over their land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme to the State Government wherein residential colony is being developed. The non applicants have accepted this in their reply but they have stated that they want to give 15% developed lands to the Khatedars in village Anantpura and Lalchand Pura. The learned 13 Tribunal held that the value of the land in those villages is meager in comparison to that of Vidhyadhar Nagar. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Khatedars were ordered to be given 15% developed land in lieu of compensation of the land acquired but by giving them land in Lalchand Pura and Anant Pura in place of Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme, it cannot be said that the same is of equal value, rather much less in comparison to it. Therefore, the said allotment of land would not be in lieu of the compensation of the acquired land. The learned appellate Tribunal had concluded that the allotting of land to the khatedars -applicants at village Anantpura and Lal Chand Pura, cannot be said to be justified when other similarly situated persons had been allotted land in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme, even though the case of the appellants is not different from them. It was also held that land is still available in Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme and transfer/ allotment of said land to persons, other than the khatedars whose lands have been acquired for field firing range, are not entitled to it. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the petitioner non applicant was directed not to allot or transfer any land at Vidhyadhar Nagar before allotment of 15% developed land to respondent/appellants. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has, by and large, reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Tribunal and submitted that the list for allotment of 15% developed land to respondent Khatedars had already been prepared on 20.7.2005 (Annexure-8) and thereafter a lottery 14 was drawn on 6.8.05 (Annex.13). Further, he has submitted that now there is no land available in Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme so as to allot developed land to the Khatedars. This fact was confronted by the learned counsel for the respondents, and therefore, the Court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit with regard to the allotment of land made in Vidhyadharnagar Scheme since February, 2002. In compliance thereof, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Officer-in-charge, on behalf of the petitioner authority. It was also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the land available in Vidhyadhar Nagar, is only commercial land and that cannot be allotted to the Khatedars in lieu of the compensation for acquisition of their land. He has also submitted that the land in village Anant-Pura is not very far off from the land of Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme, nor there is much difference in the value of the two. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondents as the relief sought was beyond its powers. 17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the khatedar-respondents have at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order has sought to be challenged after a period of about three and half years, and therefore, the writ petition is hopelessly time barred and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Further, he has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is a reasoned one and does not suffer from any illegality 15 or jurisdictional error so as to call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed also on account of the fact that it is contrary to the rules of the High Court, as it is not supported by an affidavit of the competent person. He has also submitted that the learned Tribunal did have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the order dated 6.8.05 whereby lottery was drawn and allotment order was issued to the Khatedars for land situated in village Anant Pura and Lalchand Pura in lieu of their lands which was acquired for the purpose of field firing range at Boyatwala. Further, he has submitted that it is wholly incorrect to say that the land was not available at Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme as it is clearly revealed from the record of the petitioner authority itself. In this regard, he has referred to the office noting dated 19.7.07 at Para 330 which is on record at Page 242 of the paper book. He has also invited the attention of this Court to the option exercised by the Khatedars including the respondents on 15.1.02 which is on record as Annex.R/7 wherein the total number of applicants were 13 in number and the present respondents are at Serial No. 9 to 12. He has submitted that the respondents had not only exercised their options very much in time but other khatedars who were the co-applicants thereof have already been allotted 15% developed land and they have been left out without any just cause. He has also referred to Annex.R/8 at Page 238 of the paper book. 16 18. Having given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has merit. By recapitulating the facts mentioned herein above, it is crystal clear that the order was passed by the learned Tribunal as back as on 18.10.05 and it is an undisputed fact that the present writ petition has been filed only on 17.1.09, challenging the said order of the learned Tribunal. It is also significant to note that after passing of the impugned order dated 18.10.05, when the petitioner authority had not made any compliance in furtherance thereof, the respondents had filed a Writ Petition (9908/08), before the High Court with a prayer, inter-alia, that the JDA should be directed to comply the same. The said writ petition was decided, wherein the petitioners were duly represented, on 23.10.08 directing the petitioner authority to implement the order passed by the Tribunal within a period of two months. Thereafter, the petitioner authority sought to challenge the order of the learned