1 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7289/2009. Santosh Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. Date of Order :: 27th July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. B.S.Charan, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the respondent No.4 (Caveator). ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The background aspects of the matter are that the land comprised in Araji Nos. 247 and 905/250 at village Karunda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh has been in the khatedari of Shri Ramswaroop (father of the petitioner). The respondent No.4 Company, on the submissions that the said land was falling in their mining area, made the prayer for determination of compensation under Section 89 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956') essentially for the purpose of acquiring the surface rights. It appears that earlier, 2 by the order dated 28.09.2001, the Collector, Chittorgarh proceeded to determine the amount of compensation with solatium in the sum of Rs. 17,52,820/-. It is further borne out from the material on record that a reference was made against the said order dated 28.09.2001 that was got dismissed as not pressed on 19.09.2002. However, thereafter, the khatedar Ram Swaroop filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh ('the RAA') that was decided on 25.05.2004 and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Chittorgarh with certain directions. After remand, the learned Collector proceeded to make the award on 24.01.2006 (Annex.2) determining the amount of compensation with solatium in the sum of Rs. 13,30,303/-. It is further borne out that an application was moved on behalf of the khatedar seeking reference in relation to the said award dated 24.01.2006; and the proceedings in such reference case, CM No. 179/2007, are pending in the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh. It appears, however, that the khatedar Ram Swaroop also preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 against the aforesaid award dated 24.01.2006 before the learned RAA on or about 14.06.2007; and the petitioner has been substituted in the said appeal as one of the legal 3 representatives of the deceased appellant. In the said appeal before the RAA, an application seeking interim relief came to be moved on behalf of the legal representative of the khatedar on or about 12.06.2009 with the submissions that the appeal was posted for hearing on 17.09.2009 but the respondents intended to take over possession of the land in question and if not prohibited from doing so, the appeal itself would be rendered fruitless. The learned RAA, however, declined the prayer for interim relief by the impugned order dated 23.06.2009 (Annexure 8) on the considerations, inter alia, that the appeal had been preferred with a delay of about 1 year and 2 months from the date of the impugned order, i.e., 24.01.2006; that against the said impugned order, the appellant had also adopted the reference proceedings bearing No.110/2006 (that seems to be now bearing No. 179/2007 in the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh); and that the attempt on the part of the appellants to seek the remedies in two courts simultaneously could not be countenanced. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 23.06.2009, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 84 of the 4 Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board'). However, the learned Member of the Board found no reason to interfere essentially on the consideration that the revision petition was not maintainable for having been filed in relation to an interim order. While dismissing the revision petition by the order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure-9) the learned Member, however, directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously and, as far as possible, within two months. Seeking to maintain this writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has essentially referred to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act of 1894') and submitted that the Collector had acted illegally while passing the impugned award dated 24.01.2006 and in reducing the amount of compensation awarded earlier under the order dated 28.09.2001. According to the learned counsel, per Section 25 of the Act of 1894, even the Court cannot reduce the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 and, therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction whatsoever to reduce the amount awarded earlier; and the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this count alone. The learned counsel submitted that the appeal has rightly been maintained in this matter particularly when the khatedars are sought to be 5 deprived of the property without payment of adequate compensation and then, for the other basic reason that the adjoining 14 biswas land comprised in Araji No. 936/250 is left out of acquisition and such a position would be causing serious prejudice to the khatedars inasmuch as after acquisition of 14 bighas and 14 biswas of land in Araji Nos. 247, 905/250, the remaining 14 biswas of land in Araji No. 936/250 would be rendered useless. According to the learned counsel, the compensation ought to have been awarded in relation to such 14 biswas land too. The learned counsel further contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if further proceedings are permitted to be taken by the respondents, the appeal itself would be rendered infructuous and the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury and in the given set of facts, the learned RAA ought to have granted the prayer for interim relief; and the same could not have been refused merely on the ground that a reference has been made. According to the learned counsel, the reference proceedings being essentially for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation, the other contention of the petitioner, particularly regrading the land left out, may not be of consideration by the reference court. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 6 In the first place, when the khatedar has admittedly taken up the matter in reference while seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, and the reference remains pending, there appears no reason to entertain this writ petition on the contentions regarding inadequacy of the amount of compensation. Even in that regard, reference to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1894 does not appear apposite to the questions sought to be posed. The requirement upon the Court that the amount of compensation to be awarded by it would not be less than the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector cannot ipso facto be made applicable to the Collector himself to the extent that even when the matter is remanded by the appellate authority, the Collector would remain bound by the amount suggested in the earlier award or that he cannot reduce the same even if such reduction is the necessary consequence of the findings arrived at by him. It has not been shown if the appellate authority, while remanding the matter on 25.05.2004, prohibited the Collector from reducing the amount as suggested in the order dated 28.09.2001 or directed only to enhance the amount over and above the said earlier order. In any case, as observed, when the proceedings have already been taken for enhancement of the amount of compensation 7 in reference, there appears no reason to permit the petitioner to take up another challenge to the order dated 24.01.2006 by way of this writ petition so as to permit parallel proceedings in different Courts. So far the submission of the petitioner regarding likelihood of the loss being suffered for the Company not acquiring other 14 biswas of land in Araji No. 936/250 is concerned, prima facie, it is borne out from the reply as submitted by the respondent No.4 Company before the Reference Court that the said land was not claimed by them for being not falling in their mining lease area. This Court would not like to make any further comment upon this aspect of the matter but there appears no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner in that regard either. So far the prayer for interim relief before the RAA is concerned, the same has rightly been rejected. Apart from the reason that reference proceedings are pending in other Court, the fundamental fact has been noticed by the RAA that the appeal had been filed after a delay of 1 year and 2 months and was fixed for hearing on 17.09.2009. If the RAA has declined granting interim relief in a time barred appeal, the proposition remains unexceptionable. There is no force in this writ petition and the same 8 stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//