CW 359/01 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.359/2001 Jagdamba Colony Vistar Vikas Samiti & Ors Versus State & Jaipur Development Auithority Date of Order ::: 24/07/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Mahendra Goyal, for respondent JDA Instant petition has been filed jointly by Jagdamba Colony Vistar Vikas Samiti along with its allottee members (petitioner NO.2 to 5), seeking direction against respondent-State & Jaipur Development Authority (“JDA”) for allotment of plots against 12% developed land having been kept reserved by JDA vide order dt.31/07/2000 upon acquisition of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.201 & 202, measuring 48 bighas & 16 biswa situated in village Beed Khatipura Jaipur District. Petitioner No.1-Vikas Samiti of Jagdamba Colony is not a registered body but a constituted body of members to whom plots were allotted by Hathroi Garhi Grih Nirman Sahkari Society (“Society”) in agricultural land bearing Khasra No.201 & 202 of village Beed Khatipura (Jaipur) which was sought to be acquired vide notification dt.10/10/79 issued CW 359/01 //2// U/s 52(2) of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (“UIT Act”) and was measuring 17 bighas 13 biswa & 31 bighas 3 biswa respectively. It was followed by notification dt.20/04/84 U/s 52(1) of the Act declaring the acquired land in dispute being needed for public purposes duly vested in State Government; and accordingly, notice dt.21/04/87 U/Ss 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (“LA Act”) were issued to respective Khatedars and finally Award dt.26/06/89 was passed. However, the land, on which Scheme was chalked out by the Society, as alleged in para 7, was recorded in the name of Khatedars Jodha & Ram Sukh. While passing the Award by Land Acquisition Officer, title over acquired land was disputed; and after computing compensation amount, LAO recorded finding that compensation be disbursed to Khatedars including Jodha & Ram Sukh after settlement of their title over the land in question (Ann.R.1). When amount of compensation was not being collected by Khatedars in pursuance of Award, the same was deposited in civil court U/s 31 of the LA Act and after taking possession of acquired land on 30/10/84 (Ann.R2/2) and mutation of the land of Khasra CW 359/01 //3// NO.201 & 202 was entered into in favour of JDA vide mutation NO.121 dt.30/07/87 and the acquired land in dispute is a part of Sector-1, Part-C of Chitrakoot Residential Scheme creating 543 plots over the land Khasra No.201 & 202 as is evident from lay out plan of residential plots (Ann.R2/3). It appears that after acquisition proceedings were initiated and particularly after issuance of notification U/s 52(2) of UIT Act on 10/10/79, the Housing Society entered into agreements with Khatedars Jodha & Ram Sukh on 11/05/80 & 10/07/81 (Ann.A/1 & A/2) and the society carved out plots and allotted to its members including petitioners-2 to 5, as well. Counsel submits that the society alongwith Khatedar Jodha had preferred CWP- 2434/92 questioning acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dt. 10/10/79; but their writ petition was dismissed vide order dt.27/08/97. However, it was averred in CWP- 2434/92 by Jodha that he had entered into an agreement to sale of the acquired land in dispute in favour of the housing society and possession was also handed over of the land in dispute to the society and Khatedar has no CW 359/01 //4// right, title or interest thereon and compensation be also paid to the housing society; as such petitioners being members of the housing society to whom plots were allotted, their rights have been conferred over the land in dispute for allotment of plots out of 12% developed land having been kept reserved by JDA for allotment in favour of Khatedars, whose land has been acquired. Counsel further submits that Khatedar had also filed fresh CWP-81/97 without petitioners being impleaded party respondents and the same was dismissed alongwith costs of Rs.5,000/- vide order dt.31/03/97; in such circumstances, none is entitled for allotment of plots except present petitioners to whom plots were allotted by housing society after having entered into an agreement to sale with Khatedar Jodha & Ram Sukh. Respondent JDA has filed reply apart from raising preliminary objection that Vikas Samiti being un-registered body is not competent to file instant petition after acquisition proceedings have attained finality and the acquired land finally vested with respondent and possession having been taken over by LAO on 30/10/84 vide Ann.R/2; as a CW 359/01 //5// result whereof mutation of the acquired land stood entered into in favour of JDA on 30/07/87. It has inter-alia been averred that the acquired land of Khasra No.201 & 202 is a part of Sector-1, Part-C of Chitrakoot residential Scheme in village Beed Khatipura in which total plots 543 were chalked out and allotted to respective plot holders as is evident from lay out plan of Chitrakoot residential Scheme which has been prepared after superimposing the revenue map; as such housing society was never in possession nor its allottees were in possession of the plots over acquired land in Khasra Noi.201 & 202. It has further been averred that as regards publication of booklet of members of Housing societies issued from the JDA office, it is only for the purpose to curb out mal-practises which the housing societies having been adopting while allotting one plot to different persons – numerous complaints whereof were being received in JDA office against issuance of pattas of one piece of plot by more than one at the level of housing society to different persons and taking note whereof, lists having been sent by respective housing societies were published in the form of CW 359/01 //6// booklets of such housing society for public information at large; but that will not create any right for regularisation in favour of members of housing society - to this effect, a particular note was also appended in booklets while being issued by JDA. Counsel for JDA submits that when Khatedar was not able to prove title over acquired land and title being disputed - on account whereof, Khatedar was not able to get cash compensation in terms of Award dt. 26/06/89, petitioners who claimed themselves to be allottees of housing society by virtue of having entered into agreement on 11/05/80 & 10/07/81 (Ann.A/1 & A/2) after acquisition proceedings were initiated on 10/10/79, cannot get better title for allotment of plots even out of 12% developed land having been kept reserved for Khatedars in lieu of cash compensation pursuant to order dt.31/07/2000. I have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Khatedar Jodha also filed CWP-1788/1999 with the grievance that since title was disputed – due to which, cash compensation determined by LAO vide Award dt.26/06/89 has not been CW 359/01 //7// disbursed to him and the JDA has taken decision for allotment of 12% developed land in lieu of cash compensation, therefore, reference be made to the competent civil court for adjudication of dispute about title being disputed; as such is entitled for 12% development having been kept reserved for allotment to Khatedar. However, after hearing counsel for alleged Khatedar (Jodha) of disputed acquired land and the Housing Society alongwith its few members, CWP-1788/99 has been dismissed by this court vide separate order pronounced today. Present petitioners are claiming themselves as members of the housing society which allotted plots in their favour - on the basis whereof, they are claiming allotment of plots against 12% developed land having been kept reserved by JDA for allotment in favour of Khatedars vide order dated 31/07/2000. Curiously enough acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of notification dt.10/10/79 U/s 52(2) of UIT Act, 1959 intending to acquire agricultural land including of Khatedar (Jodha) bearing Khasra NO.201 & 202 and after acquisition proceedings being initiated, agreement to sale was executed by Khatedars Jodha & Ram Sukh in favour of housing society CW 359/01 //8// respectively on 11/05/80 & 21/07/81 in regard to the land in dispute sought to be acquired and by virtue of agreement to sale (supra), plots came to be allotted to present petitioners by the society somewhere in the years 1981-1985 as is evident from letters of allotment (Ann.4 to 7). Thus, pendente acquisition proceedings, the housing society entered int agreement with Khatedar and allotted plots by issuance of plots and letters of allotment (Ann.4 to 7), while declaration was made by LAO vide notification issued U/s 52 (1) of UI Act on 20/04/84 that the land sought to be acquired was being needed for public purposes and the Award was passed on 26/06/89 after hearing Khatedars & persons interested. Notices U/s 9 & 10 of LA Act were served upon Khatedars/persons interested including Jodha/ Ramsukh who had also participated in proceedings but since he was not able to prove his title over the acquired land, after computing compensation, finally observed that since title remained disputed, amount of cash compensation duly determined will be disbursed only on settlement of its title. However, ultimate fact remains that Khatedar has not yet been able to establish its CW 359/01 //9// title over the acquired land – in absence whereof, was unable to get cash compensation in terms of Award dt.26/06/89 which made him entitled for 12% developed land being allotted as per policy of JDA in lieu of cash compensation. In the opinion of this Court, once Khatedar himself failed to prove his title pendente acquisition proceedings – in absence whereof, cash compensation after being finally computed vide Award dt.26/06/89, could not be disbursed to him and housing society or its members in whose favour pattas were issued, who are present petitioners, in fact entered into shoes only by virtue of alleged agreement to sale in regard to acquired land in dispute dt. 11/05/80 & 21/07/81, that too after initiation or pendente acquisition proceedings, which in no manner can get better title to them entitling for allotment of plots against 12% developed land being reserved by JDA for allotment in lieu of cash compensation under Award dt.26/06/89 pursuant to policy decision of JDA proclaimed vide order dt.31/07/2000. However, much emphasis has to be laid while noticing that agreement to sale in regard to acquired land in dispute was executed on 11/05/1980 and 21/07/1981 after acquisition CW 359/01 //10// proceeding had commenced on 10/10/79; which, as alleged by petitioners, was not within their notice, once notification of acquisition published, it was a public notice for initiating acquisition proceedings and legal presumption can be drawn that it was well within the knowledge of public including petitioners who purchased plots from housing society. Submission made by Counsel for petitioner that list has been published by JDA containing name of petitioners as allottees of plots by housing society, makes themselves eligible for allotment out of 12% developed land being kept reserved for Khatedars in lieu of cash compensation, is without substance for the reason that JDA has appended a note specifically in the Booklet containing list of allotees/members of respective society that publication of such a list would not confer any right. That apart, the list in the form of booklet of respective housing society has been published in the interest of public at large so that before they enter into agreement with housing society may ascertain as to whether plot intended to be purchased or allotted in their favour are not being allotted in CW 359/01 //11// duplicacy by way of issuance of different letters of allotment for one piece of plot carved out by housing society in their housing scheme. However, this Court can certainly take note of the fact that these petitioners must have spent their hardened money in purchasing plots as alleged but if they have not been able to show any legal right being infringed, which may make them entitled for allotment of plots out of 12% developed land being reserved by JDA in question, no relief can be granted in equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India and this Court does not find justification to interfere with. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.11/ 359CW01RsrJul24.doc