1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ### (1) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7360/2006 (Om Prakash Vijay & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) with (2) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8213/2006 (Suresh Chand & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) with (3) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8249/2006 (Ramjeewan Soni Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) with (4) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8960/2006 (Narayan Swaroop Garg Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) ### Date of Order :- 25.08.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.S.K. Saksena, for the petitioners. Mr.Parag Rastogi, for the UIT. ### Since these writ petitions arise out of the same factual matrix and raise an identical set of legal issues, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts are being taken from the case of Om Prakash Vijay & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7360/2006. Since the facts are similar, the facts of other writ petitions need not be narrated. The petitioners' case is that in order to establish a residential colony in the name of Deepak Nagar Yojna on Jaipur Road, in Ajmer, on 25.09.1991, a notification for acquisition of 2 land was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short). On 16.10.1992, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the Government. On 16.11.1992, the State issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. On 10.03.1995, an award under Section 11-A of the Act was passed. However, during the acquisition proceeding, in 1992 the Government decided not to establish Deepak Nagar Yojna. But instead, the Government decided that a Bus Stand on the Jaipur Road should be constructed. On 19.06.2003, the petitioners moved applications under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. However, the same were dismissed. Further, it is the petitioners' case that the land belonging to the petitioners is being required now for the Bus Stand. Mr. S.K. Saksena, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that although the award has been passed, the compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioners. Moreover, there are a series of circulars issued by the Government wherein the Government has held out that those landholders whose land is subject matter of acquisition, they will be entitled to 15% of developed land. Moreover, according to the circular dated 26.05.2000, those landholders whose land is subject matter of acquisition and who have not been paid the compensation amount, they shall be considered for the regularization of their land. Hence, the petitioners pray 3 that either their land should be regularized under the circular dated 26.05.2000 and the subsequent circular thereafter, or in the alternative under circular dated 22.04.1992, they should be granted 15% of developed land. Mr. Parag Rastogi, the learned counsel for the UIT, had contended that so far the petitioners have not even bothered to file applications before the UIT praying for the benefit of these circulars to be extended to them. Moreover, according to the circular dated 27.10.2005, they are entitled to merely 15% of developed land, and not 25% of developed land as subsequently declared by the Government. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. A bare perusal of the circular dated 26.05.2000 and 22.04.1992 clearly reveal that the petitioners are entitled to both the regularization of their land, and, in the alternative, for grant of developed land in lieu of monetary compensation. Therefore, the petitioners are free to file their applications before the UIT seeking one of the two benefits mentioned above. Hence, the petitioners are also directed to file their applications before the UIT, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The UIT is directed to decide their applications on an individual basis through a speaking and a reasoned order within a period 4 of six months from the date of receipt of their applications. The UIT shall not dispossess the petitioners till the decision is taken. With these observations, these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-S/37-S/40