LexJAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MAHESH SHARMA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1002 JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. MAHESH SHARMA & ANR. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8590 OF 2003) SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Land Acquisition: Resumption of land on enactment of C Jagirs Act - Land acquisition proceedings in respect of such land - Held: The land became government land after resumption and, therefore, cannot be subjected to land acquisition proceeding - The action on the part of Land Acquisition Officer in directing the payment of compensation o and also allotting an alternative plot of land to the original owners indicate that the Government officials abused their power and trust under the camouflage of performance of their public duty - Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - E s. 48 - Administration law - Public authority Trust: Land belonging to ldol/'Dev' statue - Records showing idol as jagirdar - Resumption of the land on enactment of Jagirs Act - Priest of the temple receiving the compensation showing himself as jagirdar - Held: Trustee F abused his position and sought to fritter away a property belonging to the idol for his self interest and self gain - Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. G Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Wrong action cannot be allowed to perpetuate on the ground of discrimination - Thus, wrongful benefits to some persons would not entitle others to claim the same benefit - Land Acquisition. H 1002 JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1003 SHARMA & ANR. In C.A. No.8590 of 2003, the land measuring 29 A Bighas and 17 Biswas was under the occupation of the idol of which the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1 was a manager being the sole priest of the temple. The said land was resumed by the Government on the enactment of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and B Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The priest of the temple received the compensation from the Jagir Commissioner. Despite vesting and resumption of the land, the acquisition notification was issued under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (LA Act) and an award was c ·passed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the compensation of the land and also recommending an allotment of plot of land. The State Government held that the land acquisition proceeding was a nullity and issued an order de- D acquiring the land under section 48 of the LA Act. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the same. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification issued under section 48 of the LA Act. An SLP filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Subsequently, the E respondent filed a fresh writ petition for contempt of court in view of alleged non-compliance of the order of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but held that it cannot enter into a controversy so as to find out whether the award was a nullity once the said order F had attained its finality upto the Supreme Court and, therefore, the direction was issued to the appellant to carry out the order. The appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. In Civil appeal no.9158 etc., the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the land which was already vested with the Government after coming into force of Jagirs Act. The land acquisition officer passed G H 1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A an award of compensation and directed for allotment of plot of the land. Pursuant to such award, the respondents-sub-awardees made representations to the Urban Improvement Trust for the allotment of land. The Trust allowed the representations and also drew up s allotment plans, asking the sub-awardees to deposit money in lieu of the same. The sub-awardees claimed to have paid the price for the allotted plot. However, allotments were not made. The sub-awardees filed writ petitions. The High Court allowed the writ petitions c holding that the action of the appellant cannot be sustained and that once an allotment was made by the Trust, the same cannot remain unfulfilled. The appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. D Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8590 OF 2003 1.1. The entire land of 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas stood E in the name of the Government and was shown as Government land in the Jamabandi for the period between 1958
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.