Narpat
Singhetc. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr [2002] Insc 212 (24 April 2002)
R.C.
Lahoti & B.N. Agrawal R.C. Lahoti, J.
Leave
granted.
Notification
under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was published in
the State Gazette in June 1960, acquiring land in the localities of Bhojpura
and Chak Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur, adjacent to Jaipur city for urban
development, viz. for multi purpose project of constructing legislative
assembly, MLA quarters and planned development of city, popularly known as 'Lal
Kothi Scheme'. The exact public purpose for acquisition is not discernible from
the record but that is immaterial for our present purpose. The Notification
under Section 4 was followed by declaration under Section 6 in May 1961. The
persons whose land was acquired under the scheme include the four appellants
before us. On 9.1.1964, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing
monetary compensation at the rate of Rs.1800/- per bigha, i.e. approximately 60
paise per sq. yard. In addition to the amount of compensation, the Land
Acquisition Officer also directed plots of 2000 or 1000 sq. yards to be
allotted to the appellants in the very scheme for which the land was acquired.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants and the State
Government both sought for reference to the Civil Court. The reference Court modified the quantum of compensation
by increasing the same to Rs.4.50p. per sq. yard while upholding the allotment
of residential plots. The State Government preferred appeals questioning the
enhancement. On 17.8.1971, a tripartite settlement was arrived at as amongst
the claimants, the State Government and the Urban Improvement Trust (the
predecessor of Jaipur Development Authority) according to which it was agreed
(a) that
the claimants accept the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer;
(b)
that the allotment of residential plots to the claimants measuring 2000 or 1000
sq. yards each in the same scheme shall stand subject to payment of price by
the allottees @ Rs.8/- per sq. yard which price shall be paid by the allottees
to the UIT deducting therefrom the amount of compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer; and
(c) that
the contest on the amount of compensation is given up and the State of Rajasthan and the UIT shall not prosecute the
appeal.
A
compromise petition, incorporating the terms of settlement, was filed in the
High Court and taken on record disposing of the appeal in terms of settlement.
On 12.10.1982, UIT was dissolved and was replaced by Jaipur Development
Authority which took over the assets and liabilities of UIT.
The
appellants filed execution application seeking implementation of the award made
by the High Court based on the compromise. For want of contest before the
executing Court, warrants of possession were directed to be issued and in
pursuance thereof possession over the residential plots allotted to the
respective appellants was delivered on 29.5.1984. Laying challenge to the order
of executing Court, the State of Rajasthan and JDA preferred revision petitions before the High Court which were
dismissed. In the special leave petition preferred before this Court, by order
dated 15.2.1988, it was directed that the judgment debtors shall have the
liberty of raising their objection to the execution application before the
executing Court which shall be decided after hearing the parties and in
accordance with law. On 1.6.1990, the executing Court rejected the objections
filed by the respondents and upheld the maintainability of the execution
application. In civil revisions preferred by the respondents, the High Court
formed an opinion that the judgment of the High Court, based on the compromise
and directing plots to be allotted to the appellants in addition to the
monetary compensation, suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction and,
therefore, was inexecutable.
The
revision petitions were decided ex-parte. Armed with the order of High Court,
on 12.8.1996, JDA resumed possession over the residential plots. Since then,
the plots are in possession of JDA excepting plot No.C-89 and C-90 out of the
total area whereof, 555 sq. mts. area has been allotted by JDA to Rajasthan
State Mines and Minerals Limited which has constructed a full fledged building
of its own over the land allotted to it.
The
ex-parte order passed by the High Court allowing the revision petitions
preferred by the respondents was recalled by High Court on the appellants
explaining the reasons for their non- appearance. The revisions were heard afresh.
By the impugned judgment dated 23.4.2001, the High Court has once again allowed
the revision petitions preferred by the respondents. The High Court has held
the compromise decree to be inexecutable as, in its opinion, allotment of land
by an award in land acquisition proceedings suffers from inherent lack of
jurisdiction. In taking this view the High Court has relied on two decisions of
this Court, namely, Jaipur Daulat Mal Jain & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 35. These
decisions, do not arise out of those very awards whereunder compensation was
fixed and residential plots directed to be allotted to the appellants,
nevertheless, both these decisions are referable to the same acquisition
proceedings under the same notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6
of the Land Acquisition Act whereby land was acquired for 'Lal Kothi Scheme'.
Shri
R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri M.L. Lahoty, Advocate, the
learned counsel for the appellants, have submitted that the High Court has
committed a serious error of law in placing reliance upon the said two
decisions of this Court which dealt with power of the Land Acquisition Officer
under Sub-Section (4) of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and held that
the Land Acquisition Officer is empowered to offer monetary compensation for
the land acquired but does not have any power or jurisdiction in him to part
with any part of the land acquired or any other land either in lieu of or over
and above the amount of monetary compensation. It was held that such direction,
if made and incorporated in the award, would be a nullity and any objection as
to inexecutability of the decree as being a nullity could be successfully
raised at the stage of execution. The law so laid down by this Court does not
have applicability to the case of a decree based on compromise more so when in
view of the offer to allot residential plots in that very scheme the claimants
have given up their right to enhanced amount of compensation. The learned
senior counsel further submitted that such an allotment of residential plots
finds support from Section 60 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 as
also by the holding of this Court in Pista Devi's case, (1986) 4 SCC 251 (Para
9), Hans Raj H. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
14037- 14056 of 1996 decided on 23.9.1996.
There
may be merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
However, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the submission which was
advanced so forcefully.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the present one is
not a fit case where we may exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vesting in
this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution favourably to the appellants
and upset the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, propose to dismiss the
appeals but subject to directions necessary to meet the ends of justice and
briefly place on record our reasons for doing so.
In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, a tabulated statement is
incorporated showing the area of land acquired and the area of plot which the
respondents agreed to allot to the appellants in addition to monetary
compensation as per the award.
Name
of the Awardee Area of land acquired (in sq. yards) Area of plot allotted (in
sq. yards) Raja Narpat Singh 872.22 1000 Rajendra Singh 3508 2000 Jyotsna Kumari
2089 2000 Chain Kumari 2089 2000 It is clear from the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondents, and which fact has not been disputed on behalf of
the appellants, that while the land acquired from the appellants was
uncultivated fallow land with no well, super-structure or habitat built
thereon, what has been offered to each of them is developed plot of 1000 or
2000 square yards area. A developed plot of 1000 or 2000 square yards means at
least 1500 or 3000 square yards of undeveloped land which is more than the area
which has been acquired from them.
The
concept behind allotting residential plots to the persons whose land has been
acquired is to rehabilitate them and to give some relief on reasonable terms
because of their having been expropriated by land acquisition proceedings. So
far as the appellants are concerned, the allotment of plots cannot be said to
have fulfilled the object of rehabilitating them because though they lost their
land but there is no material placed on record to hold them as having been
rendered destitutes on account of either their residence or their livelihood
having been lost on account of land acquisition proceedings.
Secondly,
during the course of hearing Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
S.K. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the respondents, extensively read
the decisions of this court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Daulat Mal Jain,
in particular the latter one wherein this Court has noticed blatant misuse of
power having been made by the holders of public office, bureaucrats and
unscrupulous beneficiaries having combined together and depriving the State of
its valuable land going to the extent of defeating the very public purpose for
which acquisitions were made and plots having been allotted to powerful or
affluent persons. The judgment in Daulat Mal Jain's case makes a reference to
the Inquiry Report dated 12.11.1992 of Lokayukta of Rajasthan under Section 10
of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1973 wherein prima facie
finding has been recorded against the then Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development
and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan-cum-Chairman, JDA, the then
Commissioner, JDA and the then Zonal Officer, Lal Kothi Scheme having caused
wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Jaipur Development
Authority and the public at large by making allotments of residential plots. Shri
G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel produced for our perusal the Inquiry
Report dated 12.11.1992 of the Lokayukta and read out extensively a few
passages therefrom. The Report makes a reference inter alia to the land allotted
to the 12 awardees including the four appellants herein, by way of compromise
although any positive finding of the allotments made to these appellants being
vitiated by fraud on public office or statutory power is not recorded. The fact
remains that the allotments made even by way of compromise are out of the same
land which was acquired for public purpose and out of which other allotments
made were struck down by this Court in Daulat Mal Jain's case.
Thirdly,
a finding recorded by the Executing Court in its order dated 1.6.1990, that
before the appellants took over possession over the plots allotted they had not
deposited the full price as was agreed upon, was brought to our notice and the
order says that the correctness of this finding was rather conceded to by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants before the Executing Court.
Without
entering into the question whether it is permissible for Land Acquisition
Officer or Reference court or the High Court hearing an appeal against an award
made by the Reference Court to record a compromise whereunder the beneficiary
of land acquisition agrees to offer land in lieu of monetary compensation and
whether such a compromise would be legal and not opposed to public policy, we
are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of this case are enough to
decline exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution to the appellants. The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 136 of the Constitution on this Court is discretionary. It does not
confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a
discretionary power of widest amplitude on this Court to be exercised for
satisfying the demands of justice. On one hand, it is an exceptional power to
be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extra-ordinary
situations or situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other
hand, it is an overriding power whereunder the Court may generously step in to
impart justice and remedy injustice. The facts and circumstances of this case
as have already been set out do not inspire the conscience of this Court to act
in the aid of the appellants. It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of
justice, and the appellants too ought to feel satisfied, if monetary
compensation based on the principles for assessment thereof in land acquisition
cases is awarded and in addition they are given each a plot of reasonable size
to rehabilitate themselves so as to meet the demands of reasonability and
consistency.
For
this reason the appeals are held liable to be dismissed. Still in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution two directions are
warranted for doing complete justice in the case and not to leave the
appellants in lurch remediless. And those directions we hereby make. Firstly,
the appeals preferred by the State Government in the Rajasthan High Court were
disposed of in terms of compromise and the monetary compensation was reduced in
consideration of the awardees having been allotted plots. As we are holding the
compromise to be vitiated it would be in the interest of justice that the
appeals filed by the State Government are restored for hearing on merits. The
High Court shall hear and decide the appeals appointing the quantum of monetary
compensation excluding, from its consideration, the allotment of plots to the
awardees. Secondly, though the allotment of 1000 and 2000 square yards of land
in Lal Kothi Scheme as a term of the compromise has been set aside by the High
Court it is directed that the appellants shall be allotted each a residential
plot of an area about 250 square yards in some other scheme of the JDA at the
rates effective and applicable on 17.8.1971, the date on which the compromise
was arrived at. Such allotment shall be made and possession given within a
period of three months from today. This direction we make in order to maintain
consistency and uniformity inasmuch as we find almost all the awardees having
been allotted plots and similar directions were made by this Court also in Daulat
Mal Jain's case (supra), vide para 31. In case of any dispute arising in the
matter of allotment of plots in terms of this direction, we allow liberty to
the parties to approach the High Court of Rajasthan and seek directions
preferably by the same Bench which will be hearing the appeals against the
award made by the Reference
Court.
It was
vehemently contented on behalf of the respondents that the allotment of plots
forming part of compromise should be sustained because the appellants have, in
view of the plots having been allotted to them, followed by delivery of
possession, alienated the plots or created third-party interest therein and
they would be put to serious inconvenience or placed in an awkward situation as
the third-parties would be after them while the allotted plots are lost by
them. We are not inclined to agree. If the appellants have just alienated the
plots allotted to them then securing of such plots was their adventure for
profit and not a need for rehabilitation. Then, though they may lose the plots
but they would be getting monetary compensation, solatium and interest in lieu
of the land of which they have been expropriated.
This
must satisfy them. It was also submitted that the policy decision dated December 6, 2001 of the State of Rajasthan recognises encroachers being
settled in other schemes of JDA and if the encroachers enjoy the patronage of
the State Government why not the appellants who should not be compared with
encroachers who are law-breakers. We need not comment on the policy of the
State Government recognizing an encroacher's right to allotment of land. It is
the wisdom of State and we are not aware whether the policy is guided by
socially beneficial consideration of providing roof over the head of the deprived
and poor or is a politically motivated policy of appeasement. For our purpose
the relevant consideration is the decision of this Court directing allotment of
250 square yards plot elsewhere to some such allottees whose allotment of plots
in Lal Kothi Scheme was not upheld and maintaining consistency therewith.
May be
some awardees unscrupulously or by connivance or collusion and by lapse of time
have succeeded in retaining allotment of larger plots in this very scheme but
such arbitrary or unreasonable allotments cannot be cited as precedent in
support of misguided plea of equality.
Appellants'
prayer for upholding the compromise-based allotment of plots or in the
alternative plots of lesser size being allotted out of the land acquired for
this very scheme cannot be entertained much less allowed as that would be to
some extent destructive of the purpose of acquisition. The land acquired must
be used for the public purpose for which it has been acquired.
The
appeals are disposed of maintaining the judgment of the High Court but subject
to the two directions made hereinabove. Costs as incurred.
..
........................J ( R.C. LAHOTI ) ..................J.
( B.N.
AGRAWAL ) April 24,
2002.
Back
