Goverdhan Das vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Amitava Roy, C.J.—The instant petition is one for issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to allot land in favour of the writ petitioner in lieu of compensation as per his option recorded in his letter dated 29.12.2008 (Annex. 7 to the writ petition) and to hand over the possession thereof within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents.

The facts in bare essentials are that the petitioner''s agricultural land measuring 45.8 bighas in khasra No. 244 situated in Jaisalmer was acquired by the State Government for Union of India for defence purposes i.e. for establishment of K.P.L. unit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Alongwith his land, that of late Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand was also acquired. The possession of the land was taken over in the year 1979. The cases of the petitioner and these two persons alongwith that of Smt. Ganga Devi were thereafter referred by the District Collector, Jaisalmer to the State Government u/s 31(3) of the Act vide letter No. 2201 dated 29.7.1982 to provide them land in lieu of plots acquired. As the issue remained pending since long, Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand approached this Court with S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 5506/1993 and 5507/1993 and thereafter, the State Government vide its order dated 24.7.1997 accorded sanction for allotment of alternative land to both of them on the condition that they would withdraw the writ petitions. Though the writ petitions were accordingly withdrawn, the follow up steps were not taken. Instead, a portion of the land identified vide order/communication dated 24.7.1997 to be allotted to them was awarded to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited by the District Collector, Jaisalmer for which they instituted S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1780/99.

Skipping over the intervening developments thereafter, which included withdrawal of the order/communication dated 24.7.1997 and restoration thereof, suffice it to state that by the judgment and order dated 19.11.2012, the writ petition No. 1780/99 was allowed and the State-respondents were directed to issue appropriate order allotting the land in favour of the petitioners as proposed vide sanction letter/order dated 24.7.1997 excluding the portion that stood allotted to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others in view of their (petitioners therein) waiver to that extent. It was recorded that the allotment of the land as directed would satisfy the claim of the petitioners therein for allotment of alternative land in lieu of their land acquired and that they would not be entitled to any further compensation whatsoever. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by way of cost to be paid by the State-respondents. Being aggrieved, the State preferred appeal being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 111/2013 which was vide judgment and order dated 16.5.2013 dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, however interfering with the direction imposing cost.

The petitioner herein contending in essence that though he is similarly placed, he has not been yet accorded the land in the alternative as referred to in the communications/letters dated 29.12.2008 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition), seeks the intervention of this Court for redress. That meanwhile he alike the persons adverted to hereinabove has not accepted the amount of compensation computed for his land, has been stated.

The respondents in their reply apart from mentioning that the land of the petitioner had been at the relevant time recorded as gair-khatedari land of his and that he has not accepted the compensation, have admitted that his request for allotment of alternative land alongwith others to that effect had been forwarded by the District Collector, Jaisalmer to the State Government by letter dated 29.7.1982 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition). They did refer to the letter dated 6.7.1996 of the District Collector, Jaisalmer to the effect that in another case, the State Government had taken a decision not to allot alternative land as the same would amount to amendment of the final award already prepared.

While not disputing the facts pertaining to the proceedings involving Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand on the issue of allotment of alternative land in lieu of compensation, the respondents have admitted that the case of the petitioner had remained pending in view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by them.

Whereas Mr. Bhoot has urged that the case of the writ petitioner is overwhelmingly at par in all respects with that of Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand and he is entitled to be treated alike them in the matter of allotment of alternative plot of land in lieu of compensation for his land that has been acquired and thus, in absence of any decision whatsoever of the State-respondents in taking necessary steps in this regard, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to secure the said relief to him, Mr. Boob has insisted that in view of the letter dated 6.7.1996 (Annex. 3 to the writ petition), he (petitioner) is not entitled to be allotted such land in lieu of compensation already quantified and in deposit and available to be accepted by him.

The pleaded facts and the documents on record as well as the arguments advanced have received due consideration.

Noticeably, the respondents have not denied that the land of the petitioner as referred to in the writ petition alongwith that of Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand had been acquired by the same proceeding and that he has also as on date not accepted the amount of compensation therefor. That the issue with regard to the allotment of alternative land to Bhanwarlal and Khushal Chand in lieu of compensation stands concluded by the decisions of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1780/99 Khusal Chand & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. (decided on 19.11.2012) as well as in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 111/2013 State of Rajasthan and ors. V/s. Khusal Chand and ors. (decided on 16.5.2013) is a matter of record. The attendant facts and circumstances demonstrate unequivocally that vis-a-vis the claim for alternative land in lieu of compensation, the petitioner stands on equal footing with Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand. Though the letter dated 6.7.1996 indicates that at that point of time, the State Government had not unreservedly decided to grant alternative land in lieu of the lands of the petitioner, Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand as the same according to it, would have resulted in the alteration of the final award, the fact that a proposal u/s 31(3) of the Act for grant of such alternative plots of land meanwhile had been forwarded to the State Government and that the same (proposal) had been construed to be justified was mentioned therein as well. Further, the letter dated 29.12.2008 (Annex. 6 to the writ petition) of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer addressed to the District Collector, Jaisalmer not only records the relevant facts pertaining to the acquisition of the land involved including that of the petitioner thus rendering him landless, it also recites as well that he had not accepted the amount of compensation. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the petitioner had requested for allotment of alternative land in khasras No. 776, 782 and 440. It was noted that the land of khasra No. 776 measuring 34 bigha 5 biswa was proposed to be reserved for Bank by the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer.

The khasra No. 782 contained 106 bigha 5 biswa land and the State Government had issued directions for allotment of the same to Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand in lieu of their land acquired. The land of khasra No. 440 measuring 31 bigha was found to be vacant and available and the same (31 bigha) was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner. For remaining 14 bigha 8 biswa, it was stated that after allotment of 3 bigha 8 biswa land to Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand from khasra No. 780, there would remain 48 bigha 12 biswa, out of which, 14 bigha 8 biswa could be allotted to the petitioner and for that, direction had been issued to the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer to obtain option from the petitioner and forward the same to the Collector, Jaisalmer.

In the letter (Annex. 7) of the same date addressed by the petitioner to the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer, it has been stated that in lieu of land measuring 45 bigha 8 biswa acquired, 31 bigha was sought to be allotted from khasra No. 440 and remaining 14 bigha 8 biswas sought to be from khasra No. 776 or 782.

However, as land of khasra No. 776 had been reserved and that of khasra No. 782 had been allotted to some other persons and out of 52 bigha land of khasra No. 780, 3 bigha 8 biswa has been allotted to some other persons, he had opted to be allotted the remaining 14 bigha 8 biswa from khasra No. 780.

Be that as it may, having regard to the chequered litigational background and the decisions rendered in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1780/99 Khusal Chand & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. (decided on 19.11.2012) as well as in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 111/2013 State of Rajasthan and ors. V/s. Khusal Chand and ors. (decided on 16.5.2013) and the identicalness of the case of the petitioner with that of Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand, I am of the firm opinion that he cannot be meted out a different treatment and that too in absence of convincing and irrefutable materials to the contrary. The petitioner being equally placed like Bhanwarlal and Khusal Chand has to be accorded parity of treatment.

In this view of the matter, the State respondents are hereby directed to process the claim of the petitioner on a conjoint consideration of the proposal as contained in the letters/communications dated 29.12.2008 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition) and take a decision for allotment of alternative plot (s) of land to him (petitioner) in lieu of compensation for his land acquired under the Act. As the possession of the land of the petitioner has been taken over pursuant to the acquisition proceeding in the year 1979 and over three decades have elapsed, the State respondents are ordered to complete the process as above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in undertaking this exercise the concerned authorities would notify the petitioner and take appropriate decision after affording him due opportunity of hearing on the issue. It is expected that the petitioner would also cooperate with the process in order to enable the concerned authorities to complete the same within the time frame fixed.

The petition is thus allowed in the above terms.