1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ### Smt. Suman Lata Vijay Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14446/2009) Date of Order :- 15th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.S.K. Saksena, for the petitioner. Mr.Peush Nag, for the UIT. According to the petitioner, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short) was issued. According to the Notification, since the UIT, Ajmer needed land for establishing the Deepak Nagar Yojana, the petitioner's land was being acquired. The petitioner filed his objections under Section 5(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published and a draft award was submitted to the Government. Since acquisition of land had caused lot of heart- burn in the State, since certain issues were raised about regularisation of land which is subject matter of acquisition, on 26.05.2000, the State Government had taken certain decision. According to the circular dated 26.05.2000, the State Government had decided as under :- ऐसे ूकरण ǔजनमɅ संबंिधत नगर ǒवकास Ûयास/ःथानीय िनकाय Ʈारा अवािƯ कȧ काय[वाहȣ पूण[ कर ली गई है तथा ǔजसमɅ अवाड[ के अनुसार मुआवजा रािश क चैक ःथानीय 2 िनकाय Ʈारा जारȣ Ǒकया जाकर संबंिधत खातेदार अथवा Ǒकसी स¢म अदालत मɅ जमा करवा Ǒदया गया हो तो ऐसे ूकरणɉ मɅ राजकȧय भूिम मानकर उस ¢ेऽ कȧ आवासीय आरǔ¢त दर कȧ 25 ूितशत रािश िनयमन शुãक के Ǿप मɅ लेकर िनयमन Ǒकया जा सकेगा । यहां यह ःपƴ Ǒकया जाता है Ǒक ǔजन ूकरणɉ मɅ अवाड[ जारȣ Ǒकया जा चुका है परंतु मुआवजा भुगतान कȧ रािश का चैक ःथानीय िनकाय Ʈारा खातेदार या स¢म Ûयायालय को जारȣ नहȣं Ǒकया गया है, उन ूकरणɉ मɅ सामाÛय िनयमन दर लागू होगी । Since the petitioner wanted to take benefit of the said circular, he filed application for regularization of his land before the UIT, Ajmer. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his application was rejected. The UIT did not even communicate the petitioner individually about the rejection of his application. When the petitioner came to know about dismissal of his application, he served upon the UIT, Ajmer a notice of demand of justice dated 21.01.2010. But, even the lead notice was ignored by the UIT. Hence, the petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions : firstly, under the circulars dated 26.05.2000 & 16.02.2002 certain concessions were made by the Government with regard to those cases which were subject matter of acquisition. Thus, under these circulars, the petitioner was, indeed, entitled to have his case considered for 3 regularisation. Secondly, his case has to be considered objectively. Thirdly, before rejecting his application, the UIT was legally bound to give him an opportunity of hearing. However, in the present case, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Fourthly, the citizens do have a legitimate expectation that an instrumentality of the State, like the UIT, would pass an order in accordance with law. Since the circulars entitled the petitioner for having his land regularized, the UIT is duty bound to give reasons for denying him the benefits of these circulars. Fifthly, the respondent No.2 has not communicated the rejection of the application to the petitioner. Sixthly, since each case would have its own peculiar facts and circumstances, all the application could not have been decided by a common order. Thus, the non-application of mind is writ large. Lastly, similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4273/2006 decided on 25.08.2009) and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. On the other hand, Mr. Peush Nag, the learned counsel for the UIT, has contended that the UIT has regularized the land of only those landholders whose land did not fall within the land acquisition proceeding. Secondly, it did not regularize the land of those landholders whose land falls within the acquisition proceeding. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the bar. Of course, under the Land Acquisition Act the State does have the power of eminent domain to acquire the land for public purpose. However, the State, in its wisdom, has made certain concessions through circulars dated 26.05.2000, 16.02.2002, 16.10.2007 & lastly 02.11.2007. According to these circulars, even if the acquisition proceeding is complete, even if the compensation amount has been issued by the local authority to the Khatedar, or has been deposited before a Court, even then the landholder would be entitled to regularization provided he pays 25% of the reserved price of the land. Even in case where the award has been passed and no compensation amount has been issued, even then such cases would be considered for regularisation. Thus, the landholders are entitled to have their cases considered for regularization under circular dated 26.05.2000. In order to take benefit of this circular, the petitioner had applied before the UIT. The UIT has to be aware of the fact that it is a facet of a welfare State. Therefore, it is under a constitutional duty to protect and promote the interest of the people. The citizens do have a legitimate expectation that the UIT would function in accordance with law. Therefore, the UIT is duty bound to consider the benefit to which the petitioner is entitled to under 5 the circulars. Any action of the UIT which is unfair, unjust and unreasonable would not only violate the right under the doctrine of legitimate expectations, but more importantly would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court has already decided the same issue in the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 25th August, 2009 . Therefore, applying the same principal as applied in the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr. (supra), the petitioner is directed to file his representation before the UIT, Ajmer in support of his application which was earlier filed before the UIT, Ajmer. The UIT, Ajmer is directed to deal with the case and to pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of six months from the date of receipt of his representation. The UIT, Ajmer is prohibited from dispossessing the petitioner till the decision is taken upon his representation and application. In case any adverse order is passed against any of the petitioner (s), the person shall be free to file a fresh writ petition before this Court. With these observations, this writ petitions is, hereby, allowed. No costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-