LexJAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS versus VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2011) 7 S.C.R. 242 JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS v. VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 7374 of 2003) JULY 12, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: c ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land - For planned development of Jaipur city - Scheme popularly known as 'Lal Kothi Scheme' - Transfers of portions of the acquired land effected after publication of notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 - Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation to 0 landowners and beneficiaries of illegal transfers and also ordering allotment of plots of 1000-2000 sq. yd. to landowners, their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the acquired land - In the instant case, transferee of the Khatear obtaining 1500 sq. yd. land through execution proceedings, E pursuant to the allotment order of LAO and further transfeffing the same to respondents and others - Respondents filing applications u/s 83 of Jaipur Development Authority Act questioning auction of plot nos. C-113 and C-114 by the Development Authority - Applications rejected by Appellate Tribunal - The writ petitions filed by respondents dismissed F by single Judge of High Court - However, Division Bench of the High Court directing regularization of plots in their favour - HELD: Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by entertaining an altogether new case set up on behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners), who had not even prayed G for amendment of the pleadings, and granting relief to them by declaring that they are entitled to get benefit of the policy of regularization contained in the letter dated 6.12.2001 - The Division Bench could not rely upon the so-called policy decision stated to have been taken by the Government in H 242 JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v. 243 VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR. flagrant violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court A wherein it was categorically held that the transactions involving transfer of land after the issue of notification u/s 4 were nullity and the Land Acquisition Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct allotment of land to the awardeeslsub awardees, their nominees/sub-nominees - The basics of judicial discipline B required that the Division Bench of the High Court should have followed the law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam's case and Dau/at Mal Jain's case and refused relief to the respondents - Further, the Division Bench of the High Court ignored the unchallenged findings recorded by the c Tribunal and the trial court that the khatedar's transferee, from whom the respondents (writ petitioners) had purchased the plots, did not have valid title over the land and he had no right to secure allotment of 1500 sq. yd. land in the 'Lal Kothi Scheme' - The order of High .Court set aside with cost of Rs. D 5 lac to be paid by the respondents for pursuing unwarranted litigation for the last 15 years - Cost to be deposited with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority - Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 - s. 83 - Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 - Judicial discipline - Precedent - Constitution of India, 1950 E - Article 226 - Writ petition - New Plea - Costs -· Administration of Justice - Party pursuing unwarranted litigation - Imposition of cost. Constitution of India, 1950: F Articles 77 and 166 - Policy decision - Connotation of - Acquisition of land - Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation to land owners and beneficiaries of illegal transfers and ordering allotment of 1000-2000 sq. yd. plots G to landowners their transferees and nominees/sub-nominess, out of the acquired land - Courts holding that Land Acquisition Officer did not have jurisdiction to direct such allotment - Recommendations made by Committee set up by Minister of Urban Development and Housing, suggesting the H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A methodology for allotment of land in terms of directions given by Land Acquisition Officer -Letter dated 6.12.2001 issued purporting to contain the policy - HELD: Unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and is authenticated in the manner s prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order made on behalf of the Government - In the instant case, a reading of letter dated 6.12.2001 shows that it was neither
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.