LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2013

Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - High Court has allowed the writ petitionsPage 2 filed by the respondent-Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’), for quashing the order of cancellation of allotment of land and directing the appellants for providing the approach/access road. = The cancellation of allotment was made by appellant- RIICO in exercise of its power under Rule 24 of the Rules 1979 read with the terms of the lease agreement. Such an order of cancellation could have been challenged by filing a review application before the competent authority under Rule 24 (aa) and, in the alternative, the respondentcompany could have preferred an appeal under Rule 24(bb)(ii) before Infrastructure Development Committee of the Board. The respondentcompany ought to have resorted to the arbitration clause provided in the lease deed in the event of a dispute, and the District Collector, Jaipur would have then, decided the case. However, the respondentcompany did not resort to either of the statutory remedy, rather preferred a writ petition which could not have been entertained by the High Court. It is a settled law that writ does not lie merely because it is lawful to do so. A person may be asked to exhaust the statutory/alternative remedy available to him in law. 32. In view of the above, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Thus, the appeals are allowed. Judgment and order impugned are set aside and the order of cancellation of allotment in favour of the respondent- 32Page 33 company by the appellant is restored. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

›
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7252-7253 OF 2003 The Rajasthan State ...

Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - High Court has issued directions to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (in short `RIICO’), the appellant herein, to release the land in dispute from landPage 2 acquisition in favour of respondent No.1 - housing society (hereinafter referred to as `the society’).-The respondent society never made any application for release of the land on any ground whatsoever, before the Competent Authority i.e. Secretary to the Department of Industries, instead, it applied for regularization before the JDA and before the revenue authorities for conversion of user of the land. (viii) After the order of this court dated 9.9.1992, a telegram was sent by the society to the Chief Secretary stating that great injustice had been done to them, as their land was not released, raising the issue of discrimination qua other societies, but no factual 36Page 37 foundation was laid therein, pointing out the discrimination meted out. (ix) The High Court entertained the writ petition, without comparing the actual facts of the respondent society qua other societies. (x) The High Court did not consider a single objection raised by the appellant RIICO before it. The finding of fact recorded to the effect that compensation could not be paid to the khatedars for want of money, is based on no evidence even though a reference was made to an affidavit filed by the State Authorities. Such findings are absolutely perverse. (xi) There is no denial in specific terms as to whether the tenure holders had received compensation for the land in dispute, even though in the earlier proceedings, some khatedars were parties. (xii) The schemes floated by the State Government (knowing well that acquiring land after the issuance of Section 4 Notification would be void), indicates a sorry state of affairs. Such orders have been passed without realizing that administration does not include mal-administration. 37Page 38 (xiii) The circulars issued by the State Government, being inconsistent with the policy and the law regarding acquisition, cannot be taken note of. Issuance of such circulars amounts to committing fraud upon statutes, and further, tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The State in exercise of eminent domain acquires the land. Thus, before completing the acquisition proceedings, it should not release the land in favour of some other person who could not have acquired title over it at any point of time. (xiv) The land had been acquired for industrial development and thus, cannot be permitted to be used for residential purposes. Therefore, the demand of the respondent-society cannot be held to be justified. 34. In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 30.7.2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 454 of 1993 is hereby set aside. No costs.

›
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7254 OF 2003 The Rajasthan State Indust...