LexTHE SECRETARY, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR versus DAULAT MAL JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c THE SECRETARY, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR v. DAULAT MAL JAIN SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 ' [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Land Laws: Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953: Sections 4, 6, 16 and 31(3). Land Acquisition-Pwt of acquired land allotted to erstwhile owner- Subsequently owner sold such land to 'sub-awardees' or 'nominees'-Validity of-Held : Once notification of acquisition of land issued u11der S. 4, decla- ration made u11der S. 6 and possession of land taken under S.16, pre-existing D right, title and interest of la11downer stood ceased a11d same vested in State free from all encumbrances-Hence, allotment of pa1t of la11d to erstwhile owner was void-It was not saved by S. 31(3) of Act or R1: 31 and 36 of Rules-Subsequent sale of pan of la11d to 'sub- awardees' or 'nominees' was opposed to public policy a11d he11ce void under S. 23 of Contract Act-Con- sequently, purchasers acquired no 1ight, title or interest therein-Rajasthan E Land Acquisition Rules, 1956, Rr. 31 and 36--Rajasthan Improvement Tntst (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1956-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss. 4, 6, 31(3) & (4)-contract Act, 1872, S. 23. F G Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14 and 166(3). Public Accountability-Misuse of power-By public servant viz., Mini- ste1~Held : Minister answerable and accountable to people for acts or conduct in pe1f onnance of duties not only by him personally but also by bureaucrats working under him. A1ticle 14-Discrimination-If some persons derived benefit by il- legality, others similarly situated could not claim same benefit on ground of equality-Judicial pro.cess could not be abused to perpetuate illegalities. A notification under· Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was published in the Oflicial Gazette for acquiring land for a H housing scheme. After following the procedure, an award was passed and 584 SECY. JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITY v. D.M. JAIN 585 possession of the land was taken. Therein, apart from awarding compen- A sation to the owners the land Acquisition Otlicer (LAO) granted plots to owners, sub-awardees or nominee in the scheme itself. It was the case of the respondents that pursuant to a public policy, the Government had decided to allot the lands to the sub-awardees/nominees. Further, the Minister, accepting the same, had directed delivery of possession of land. B The respondents purchased the lands from the erstwhile owner, pursuant to the sale deeds executed by him. These allotments were questioned by way of writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court held that the LAO and the Minister had committed illegality for such allotments being ob- noxious, deflected the scheme and defeated the public purpose by abusing public office. However, the High Court directed allotment of the lands to C the respondents since allotment made to others had become final and denial thereof to the respondents would amount to violation of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the LAO was empowered under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956 to allot the lands in lieu of compensation; that Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is in pali materia with Section 31 of the Act empowered the LAO D to allot land in lieu of compensation; that the public policy further reiterated it; that the Government decided to allot land to the awardees, E sub-awardees or nominees of the erstwhile owners of the land; that in furtherance thereof, all<!_tment came to be made, directions were given for deposit of the value of the sites pursuant to which the amount came to be deposited; that the Government had evolved the policy to mete out the problem of the rehabilitation of the awardees, sub-awardees and nominees; F that the Government, therefore, in implementation of the scheme had allotted the plots, amounts were deposited in furtherance of the policy, irrespective of the fact whether or not the LAO had power to allot the land to the awardees or sub-awardees or nominees; that the policy of the Government to allot plots legitimated the allotment made to the respon- dents and, therefore, the allotment was valid in law; that since some people G were given possession and some among them had built houses thereon, the respondents could not be denied of their right to possession; that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.