// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.231/1975 Rameshwar Prasad S/o late Shri Jagannath and Others Versus The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 01.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri N.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for Shri R.D. Rastogi, Counsel for petitioner Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Petitioner No.1, present- in-person Shri Bharat Vyas, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri S.N. Kumawat, Counsel for respondent No.4 #### By the Court:- Petitioner Jagannath filed this writ petition way back on 14th January, 1975 with a prayer to quash the Notifications dated 26.04.1969 and 28.02.1973, and the proceedings for acquisition of his land before the Land Acquisition Officer and Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, and further to restrain the respondent No.2 not to initiate any proceedings for acquisition of the land on the basis of aforesaid Notifications. The other prayers were also made. It was pleaded in the writ petition that // 2 // the petitioner Jagannath is khatedar tenant of agriculture land bearing Khasra Numbers - 126 measuring 10 biswa, 128 measuring 15 biswa, 128 measuring 19 biswa, 129 measuring 1 bigha 9 biswa, 137 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa, 138 measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa, 139 measuring 10 biswa, 146 measuring 5 biswa, 147 measuring 2 biswa, 148 measuring 3 biswa, 149 measuring 9 biswa, 150 measuring 2 bigha 17 biswa, 163 measuring 11 biswa, 164 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswa, situated in Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. Number of grounds have been taken to quash the Notifications, referred to above, in the memo of writ petition. The writ petition was listed before the Court on 31st March, 1983 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was granted one month's time to file fresh notices failing which the writ petition would stand dismissed automatically. The needful was not done and on account of the peremptory order the writ petition was dismissed on 29th August, 1983. The petitioner Jagannath expired on 18th January, 1999. An application for restoration of the writ petition was moved in the year 2005 and the same was allowed vide order dated 6th September, 2006 and the writ petition was restored to its original number. The application for taking on // 3 // the record legal representatives of sole petitioner Jagannath was allowed on 24th January, 2007. Shri Bharat Vyas, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3, contended that the entire acquisition proceedings in the present matter have been concluded long back, therefore, the claim made by the petitioner has become infructuous; the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that acquisition proceedings arising out of the Notification challenged by the present petitioner were earlier challenged by other persons also by way of writ petitions and those writ petitions have already been dismissed. The special appeals preferred in those cases have also been dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter Special Leave Petitions were preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court which have also been dismissed. He contended that the Notification impugned in this writ petition has already been upheld by the learned Single Bench, Division Bench and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in identical matters. He referred the judgment dated 29th August, 1996 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of similarly situated person i.e. Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited // 4 // Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2090/1987. Thereafter Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.926/96 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16th September, 1996. The other identical Special Appeals were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter the Special Leave Petitions No.3690-94 of 1981 and other identical Special Leave Petitions were preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same were also dismissed vide order dated 29th August, 1983, therefore, the present writ petition is fully covered by the above referred decisions of the learned Single Bench, Division Bench and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein the Notification impugned in this writ petition was upheld. Shri Bharat Vyas also contended that one of the members of the Samiti who preferred writ petition earlier, namely, Udit Gopal Beri initiated fresh proceedings by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.95/97 in the same matter but the said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5th September, 2000. Shri Vyas further contended that the present writ petition was dismissed on 29th August, 1983 because of the peremptory order // 5 // passed by this Court on 31st March, 1983 and the same remained dismissed for more than 23 years till it was restored to its original number on 6th September, 2006. If the present writ petition would have remained pending then it would have also been dismissed along-with other identical matters. He further contended that he has also preferred Special Appeal before the Division Bench against the order dated 6th September, 2006 restoring the present writ petition after 23 years, and that Special Appeal is pending for disposal before the Division Bench. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited (for shot, 'the housing society'), contended that the respondent No.4, on coming to know about restoration of the writ petition after 23 years, immediately moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its impleadment as respondent No.4; the said application was allowed by this Court on 20th November, 2007; thereafter on its behalf a reply to the writ petition was filed contending that sole petitioner late Shri Jagannath had sold his // 6 // land bearing Khasra Nos.137, 138, 146, 139, 163, 164, 148, 149, 150, 136, 143, to respondent No.4 housing society vide agreement dated 21st January, 1976 and additional agreement dated 8th May, 1987; the respondent No.4 housing Society purchased total land measuring 9 bigha 5 biswa. It was agreed upon that purchaser will pay cost of land of 8 bigha only for the reason that 2000 square yard land, near the house of the petitioner, will be left for him and a plot of land measuring 1100 square yard will be allotted free of costs to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 housing Society. The details of payment having been made to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 housing Society mostly through Cheques, have been mentioned in the additional agreement dated 8th May, 1987, a copy of which has been placed on the record as Annexure-R4/1. He contended that Advocates Shri G.L. Pareek, who was counsel for petitioner in this writ petition, and Saket Pareek are witnesses to the additional agreement dated 8th May, 1987. The petitioner Shri Jagannath also gave his affidavit duly attested by the Notary Public about selling of his land measuring 9 bigha 5 biswa to the respondent No.4 housing society vide agreement of 1976, and having received the entire sale consideration in cash // 7 // and through Cheques as per details given therein, a copy of which has been placed on the record as Annexure-R4/2. Thereafter the respondent No.4 housing society developed the land and chalked out a residential scheme over it known as Siddharth Nagar. The plots were allotted to its members, who are in possession of the same and they have already constructed their houses at the spot. The Additional Collector (South), Agriculture Land Conversion, Jaipur, passed an order for conversion of the land vide order dated 30th December, 1985, a copy of which has also been placed on the record as Annexure-R4/4. The Competent Authority, Zone B-I, Jaipur Development Authority/Authorized Officer, Jaipur, vide its order dated 9th July, 2001 has also passed an order under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with Section 63 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, on the application moved on behalf of the respondent No.4 housing society, a copy of which has also been placed on the record as Annexure-R4/5. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 housing society, also referred the application dated 7th October, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioners for taking subsequent events on the record, particularly // 8 // Para 6 wherein the petitioners have admitted that the respondent No.4 housing society has developed the residential scheme over the disputed land in the name of Siddharth Nagar and the said housing society submitted a list of its members with all relevant documents to the Jaipur Development Authority for regularization of the land after completing all formalities of the Scheme Siddharth Nagar “A”. He also referred the order dated 29th November, 2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Class, Sanganer, District Jaipur, in Temporary Injunction Application No.177/1996, filed in a suit of the petitioners wherein the facts of the suit/application were mentioned to the effect that the agreement was executed by late Shri Jagannath in favour of the respondent No.4 housing society. The petitioners have also filed the order dated 29th November, 2006 along-with their reply dated 28th May, 2008 to the application filed by the respondent No.4. He, therefore, contended that the respondent No.4 housing society has been in possession of the disputed land, as referred above, since January, 1976 and the said housing society has already chalked out a residential scheme in the name of Siddharth Nagar and, in these circumstances, it is clear that petitioners have transferred their // 9 // interest in the disputed land in favour of respondent No.4 housing society and present writ petition on behalf of petitioners has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. I have considered the submissions and pleadings of the parties. The petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 1975 which was dismissed on 29th August, 1983 for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 31st March, 1983 and it remained dismissed for about 23 years till it was restored to its original number on 6th September, 2006. The judgment dated 29th August, 1996 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2090/1987, Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan, clearly shows that the said writ petition was filed challenging the Notification dated 21st August, 1969 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953, which has been challenged in the present writ petition also, and the said writ petition was dismissed. The D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.926/1996, filed by Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 16th September, 1996. As per statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, the // 10 // Notifications impugned in this writ petition have already been examined and upheld by the learned Single Bench, Division Bench of this Court and by Hon'ble Supreme Court also. The additional agreement Annexure-R4/1 clearly shows that the respondent No.4 housing society has purchased the disputed land from the sole petitioner late Shri Jagannath vide agreement dated 21st January, 1976 and additional agreement dated 08.05.1987 and paid the entire sale consideration to him as per the details given in the additional agreement. Most of the payment has been made through Cheques and affidavit duly signed by Jagannath and attested by Notary Public is also on the record which clearly shows that the land, in dispute, was sold by the petitioner Jagannath to the respondent No.4 housing society in the year 1976. The order dated 30th December, 1985, passed by the Additional Collector (South), Agriculture Land Conversion, Jaipur (Annexure- R4/4) also shows that the land, in dispute, along-with other land was converted from agriculture to residential scheme. The land conversion and regularization order was passed by the State Government also vide order dated 18th January, 1990, a reference of which has been given in the letter dated 24th January, // 11 // 1990 (Annexure R4/3) whereby the State Government accorded its sanction for change of land use of the disputed land in the master plan also. The respondent No.4 housing society filed the application under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Jaipur Development Authority. The Competent Officer/ Authorized Officer, Zone B-I, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, vide its order dated 9th July, 2001, has already passed an order under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In view of the above, it is apparent that the petitioners have lost their interest in the disputed land and, in these circumstances, the petitioners have no right over the disputed land and they cannot be said to be aggrieved persons to maintain the present writ petition. This is a case where the respondent No.4 housing society chalked out the residential scheme known as Siddharth Nagar and allotted plots to its members, who have already raised constructions, which is clear from the order of the Authorized Officer passed under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the respondent JDA is now required to proceed further in the matter by issuing lease-deeds to the members of the respondent No.4 housing society. In view of the above discussions, I find // 12 // that the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//