CW/12696/2015 of POONAM KUMARI CHOUDHARY andORS Vs STATE OF RAJ AND ORS on 22 December 2016

(1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 12696 OF 2015

1. Poonam Kumari Choudhary D/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Jat, Agedabout 25 years, R/o House No. 1K215, Shivaji Park, Alwar.

2. Rekha Yadav W/o Shri Pramod Yadav, Aged about 33 years,R/o Plot No. 2 Dhauli Doob, Alwar.

3. Sher Singh Yadav S/o Shri Bansi Lal Yadav, Aged about 35years, R/o Plot No. 1 Dhauli Doob, Alwar.

4. Jamsida W/o Shri Nasir Hussain, Aged about 32 years, R/oPlot No.4 Dhauli Doob, Alwar.

5. Kamrudeen S/o Shri Chawala, Aged about 50 years, R/o PlotNo. 3 Dhauli Doob, Alwar.

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Govt. ofRajasthan, Jaipur, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Chief Secretary, UDH, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt.Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

4. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 12684 OF 2015

Abdul Sakur Son of Shri Mehraj Khan, Aged about 60 years, r/oDhauli Doob, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Govt. ofRajasthan, Jaipur, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Chief Secretary, UDH, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt.

Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

4. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

….Respondents

(3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 13099 OF 2015

1. Nirmala W/o late Shri Ajit Singh Yadav, Aged about 42 years,R/o plot no 42, Dhauli Doob, Alwar.

2. Sunita W/o Shri Naresh Yadav, Aged about 33 years, R/o Plot No. 43 Dhauli Doob, Alwar.

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Govt. ofRajasthan, Jaipur, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Chief Secretary, UDH, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt.Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

4. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

(4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14925/2015

1. Harendra Kumar, S/o Mehar Chand by caste Jat, aged about35 years, R/o Plot No.25, Block B, Rath Nagar, Alwar

2. Surendra Kumar, S/o Mehar Chand by caste Jat, aged about35 years, R/o Plot No.25, Block B, Rath Nagar, Alwar -Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

-Respondents

(5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 14928/2015

Dayanand Saini, S/o Rameshwar Dayal Saini, by caste Mali, agedabout 41 years, R/o Plot No.63, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar represented throughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

(6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15386/2015

Smt. Beena devi, W/o Rajesh Kumar, by caste Jangid, agedabout 37 years, R/o Plot No.48B, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar represented throughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

1. Smt. Indu Yadav, W/o Virendra Singh Yadav, by caste Ahir,aged about 27 years, R/o Plot No. 67, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

2. Smt. Nandini Yadav, W/o Vinod Yadav, by caste Ahir, agedabout 33 years, R/o Plot No. 67, Rath Nagar, Alwar

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar represented throughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

(8) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15388/2015Daulat Ram, S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, by caste Sheduled Caste,aged about 27 years, R/o Plot No.4, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.).

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar represented throughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

3. Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

….Respondents

(9) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15390/2015Smt. Renu Sharma, W/o Aman Sharma, by caste Brahmin, agedabout 34 years, R/o Plot No.46, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi, W/o Bhoop Singh by caste Jat, agedabout 34 years, R/o Plot No.65, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Neelam Devi, W/o Hawa Singh, by caste Jat, aged about 25years, R/o Plot No.51B, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...PetitionerVERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Matadeen, S/o Ramkaran, by caste Jat, aged about 42 years,R/o Plot No.52, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(13) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15569/2015Smt. Sheela Devi, W/o Balbeer Choudhary, by caste Jat, agedabout 34 years, R/o Plot No.64, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.).

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(14) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15570/2015Bhawani Shankar, S/o Jagram Yadav, by caste Ahir, aged about47 years, R/o Plot No.19, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.).

...PetitionerVERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

1. Vijay Singh, S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, by caste Jat, aged about35 years, R/o Plot No.29-30, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

2. Shiv Charan, S/o Bhagwan Singh, by caste Jat, aged about 38years, R/o Plot No.29-30, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

1. Hukam Singh, S/o Abhay Singh, by caste Ahir, aged about 24years, R/o Plot No.63, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

2. Vikram Singh, S/o Abhay Singh, by caste Ahir, aged about 24years, R/o Plot No.63, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Patasi Devi, W/o Shri Kailash Chand Mehra, by caste Mehra, aged about 41 years, R/o Plot No.12, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.).

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Suman Devi, W/o Naresh Yadav by caste Ahir, aged about 26years, R/o Plot No.57 & 58, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

1. Smt. Vimla Devi, W/o Shri Vikram Singh, by caste Jat, agedabout 25 years, R/o Plot No.13, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

2. Smt. Susheela Devi, W/o Ashok Kumar, by caste Jat, agedabout 23 years, R/o Plot No.13, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Sushila Devi W/o Late Shri Pat Ram, Aged about 50 years, R/oPlot No.93, Rath Nagar, Alwar (Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Ummaid Kumari, W/o Virendra Singh, by caste ScheduledCaste, aged about 40 years, R/o Plot No.3, Rath Nagar, Alwar....Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

1. Rameshwar Dayal, S/o Shri Ram Pratap, by caste Ahir, agedabout 40 years, R/o Plot No.14, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

2. Smt. Sushila, W/o Kanwar Pal, by caste Jat, aged about 35years, R/o Plot No.14, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(23) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15867/2015

Ganesh Kumar Jangir S/o Sh. Totaram Bye caste Jangir, agedabout 38 years, R/o Village Balaboda, Dholidoob Chungi Naka,Behror Road, Alwar(Rajasthan)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, UDH,Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar.

3. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

….Respondents

(24) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15868/2015

Tara Chand Jangir S/o Sh. Totaram Bye caste Jangir, aged about55 years, R/o Village Balaboda, Dholidoob Chungi Naka, BehrorRoad, Alwar(Rajasthan)

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, UDH,Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar.

3. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

….Respondents

(25) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15869/2015

Jammel Ahmad S/o Late Shri Dalmir Khan, Bye caste Mev, agedabout 55 years, R/o Village Balaboda, Dholidoob Chungi Naka,Behror Road, Alwar(Rajasthan)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, UDH,Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar.

3. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

(26) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15870/2015

Abdul Jamal S/o Sh. Seetab Khan, Bye caste Mev, aged about 52years, R/o Village Balaboda, Dholidoob Chungi Naka, BehrorRoad, Alwar(Rajasthan)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, UDH,Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar.

3. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

….Respondents

(27) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 15871/2015

Dalmod S/o Shri Akhi Khan, Bye caste Mev, aged about 85years, R/o Village Balaboda, Dholidoob Chungi Naka, BehrorRoad, Alwar(Rajasthan)

VERSUS

1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, UDH,Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar.

3. UIT, Alwar through Secretary.

Smt. Rajbala, W/o Shri Manoj Kumar, by caste Ahir, aged about30 years, R/o Plot No.60, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Poonam Devi, W/o Aminchand, by caste Jat, aged about 34years, R/o Plot No.77, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Susheela Devi, W/o Kanhaiya Lal, by caste Jat, aged about43 years, R/o Plot No.78, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Sushila Devi, W/o Ghanshyam by caste Scheduled Caste,aged about 37 years, R/o Plot No.2, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Sharmila, W/o Santlal, by caste Ahir, aged about 30 years,R/o Plot No.61, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

1. Hemraj S/o Ratiram, by caste Jat, aged about 35 years, R/oPlot No.9, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

2. Jaipal, S/o Bheem Singh, by caste Jat, aged about 30 years,R/o Plot No.10, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Naresh Devi, W/o Vinod Kumar, by caste Ahir, aged about40 years, R/o Plot No.33, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Anandi Lal S/o Shri Narayan Lal, by caste Jangid, aged around60 years, R/o Plot No.11, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Chandro Devi W/o Shri Rajbeer, by caste Jat, aged around45 years, R/o Plot No.1, Village – Dhauli Doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...PetitionerVERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Roshani Devi W/o Shri Satish Choudhary, by caste Jat,aged around 38 years, R/o Plot No.52, Village – Dhauli doob,Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(38) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 17157/2015Smt. Rajbala W/o Dayaram, by caste Jat, aged around 29 years,R/o Plot No.29, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Subhash Chand S/o Shri Ramju Ram, by caste Kanjar, agedaround 40 years, R/o Plot No.27, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...PetitionerVERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Ashok Kumar S/o Shriram, by caste Jat, aged around 38 years,R/o Plot No.46, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Kamlesh Devi W/o Shri Satbeer, by caste Jat, aged around48 years, R/o Plot No.28-42, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Amarpal Singh, by caste Ahir, agedaround 30 years, R/o Plot No.8, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional Chief Secretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Sunil Kumar S/o Jai Singh, by caste Jat, aged around 30 years,R/o Plot No.63, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Snehlata W/o Shri Rohitashv Yadav, by caste Ahir, agedaround 45 years, R/o Plot No.40-41, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Shrichand, by caste Jat, aged around 65years, R/o Plot No.49, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(46) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 18434/2015Balliram S/o Shri Ramphal, by caste Jatav, aged around 35years, R/o Plot No.1, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Nandlal S/o Shri Narayan lal, by caste Jangid, aged around 50years, R/o Plot No.14, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Rameshwar Dayal S/o Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, by caste Ahir,aged around 38 years, R/o Plot No.11-12, Village – Dhauli doob,Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar represented throughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.Secretary, UIT, Alwar.

Basant Ram S/o Shri Phoolchand Shrama, by caste Brahmin,aged around 60 years, R/o Plot No.53, Village – Dhauli doob,Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.Secretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Hariram By Caste Chamaar, aged around35 years, R/o Plot No.5, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(51) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18439/2015

Anandi Lal S/o Shri Narayan Lal, by caste Jangid, aged around60 years, R/o Plot No.27, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(52) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18440/2015

Sitaram S/o Shri Jotaram, by caste Ahir, aged around 41 years,R/o Plot no, 49, village- Dhauli doob, Alwar (Raj.)

….Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H, Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban improvement Trust Alwar represented ThroughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwal.

…..Respondents

(53) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18441/2015

Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand, by caste Bawariya, agedaround 45 years, R/o Plot no, 6, village- Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

VERSUS

-Petitioner

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H, Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban improvement Trust Alwar represented ThroughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

-Respondents

(54) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18442/2015

Atar Singh S/o Shri Hazari Lal, by caste Ahir, aged around 35years, R/o Plot no, 7, village- Dhauli doob, Alwar (Raj.)

-Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H, Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban improvement Trust Alwar represented ThroughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Alwar.

(55) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18443/2015

Kasmina w/o Idu Khan, by caste Mev, aged around 32 years, R/oPlot no, 53, village- Dhauli doob, Alwar (Raj.)

VERSUS

-Petitioner

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H, Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban improvement Trust Alwar represented ThroughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

-Respondents

(56) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18444/2015

Smt. Kripa Devi w/o Shri Ramniwas, by caste Gurjar,, agedaround 32 years, R/o Plot no, 15, village- Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

-Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H, Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban improvement Trust Alwar represented ThroughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

-Respondents

(57) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18445/2015

1. Bhoop Singh, S/o Kailash Chand, by caste Ahir, aged about 24years, R/o Plot no,3. Rath Nagar Alwar.

2. Balbeer, S/o Kailash Chand, by caste Ahir, aged about 22years, R/o Plot no. 3, Rath Nagar, Alwar -Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H, Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

2. Urban improvement Trust Alwar represented ThroughSecretary, UIT, Alwar.

Respondents

(58) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18446/2015

Smt. Sumitra Yadav, W/o Shri Naresh Chand Yadav, by casteAhir, aged about 43 years, R/o Plot No.2, Rath Nagar, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(59) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18447/2015

Raghuveer Singh, S/o Kishan Lal , by caste Jatav, aged about 37years, R/o Plot No.15, Rath Nagar, Alwar.

...PetitionerVERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(60) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19681/2015

Ghanshyam S/o Shri Sohanlal, by caste Jatav, aged around 43years, R/o Plot No.25, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

(61) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16946/2015

Smt. Ramrati Devi W/o Shri Sundar Lal, by caste Kumhar, agedabout 46 years, R/o Plot No.77, Village – Dhauli doob, Alwar(Raj.)

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Rajasthan represented through Additional ChiefSecretary, U.D.H., Government of Rajasthan, GovernmentSecretariat, Jaipur.

DATE OF ORDER : 22/12/2016

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Prateek Mathur,Mr.Vaibhav Bhargava, Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, M.S. Raghav with Mr.Vishwas Saini & Mr. S.S. Ola, for Petitioners Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG with Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, for the StateMr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with] Mr. Aditya Mathur] for respondentsMr. Parag Rastogi]

By this bunch of writ petitions, a challenge is made tothe acquisition award dated 6[th] July, 2015.

For convenience, facts of CWP No.14925/2015 aretaken.

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that aNotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (in short “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 5[th] July,2012. After the Notification aforesaid, an inquiry underSection 5(2) of the Act of 1894 was conducted. Thepetitioners preferred bunch of writ petitions led by Smt.Rajbala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ PetitionNo.14351/2012, decided by this court vide order dated 27[th]August, 2013. The writ petitions therein were renderedinfructuous and accordingly, dismissed. It was on thestatement made by learned counsel for respondents thatproposed acquisition has been dropped at the stage ofdeclaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Afterdismissal of the writ petitions on the statement made bylearned counsel for respondents, acquisition award has beenpassed on 6[th] July, 2015 and is challenged herein.

Learned counsel submits that once the statement was made by the respondents about dropping of the acquisitionproceedings, they could not have passed award subsequentto it. If award is allowed to stand, it would be nothing but after getting writ petitions dismissed with mis-statement offact before the court. If acquisition proceedings were notdropped, there was no occasion for the respondents tomake statement before the court to get writ petitions of thepetitioners dismissed after rendering it to be infructuous. Inview of above, impugned acquisition award 6[th] July, 2015may be set aside.

It is moreso when respondents have made applicationsto seek recall of the order passed in the bunch of writpetitions led by Smt. Rajbala (supra). The applications forrecall of the order dated 27[th] August, 2013 have not yetbeen decided. Unless the order dated 27[th] August, 2013 isrecalled, the respondents were not at liberty to proceedwith the acquisition in those cases where writ petitions weredismissed after rendering it to be infructuous.

Learned counsel for petitioners further contended thatthere are few writ petitions where acquisition was notearlier challenged along with bunch of writ petitions led bySmt. Rajbala. In those writ petitions, a liberty may be givento file afresh. However, those writ petitions in whichchallenge of the acquisition was made earlier also and writpetitions were decided vide order dated 27[th] August, 2013,the impugned acquisition award may be set aside.

Arguments

Learned Additional Advocate General Shri RajendraPrasad, Shri R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted byMr.Prateek Mathur and Shri Parag Rastogi for respondentshave contested the writ petitions.

It is submitted that in the earlier bunch of writpetitions led by Smt. Rajbala, a challenge was made to theNotification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and an orderwas passed under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1894. Beforedismissal of the writ petitions vide order dated 27[th] August,2013, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 hadalready been issued. In view of above, there was no reasonto make statement for dropping of the acquisitionproceedings. The statement aforesaid was made only in fewwrit petitions where construction was existing and not in allthe writ petitions. It was unfortunately recorded in all thewrit petitions. The respondents have already filedapplications to seek recall of the order dated 27[th] August,2013. The applications aforesaid are pending.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and asdeclaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 had alreadybeen made, the respondents proceeded with the acquisitionand passed the impugned award. It has been assailed evenby the petitioners who were not in the earlier bunch of writpetitions led by Smt. Rajbala (supra). The challenge to the award by them is not sustainable and otherwise a libertyhas been sought for filing of the fresh writ petition thusatleast those writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

It is further submitted that since the respondents havealready filed application to seek recall of the order dated27[th] August, 2013 and is likely to be recalled, interference inthe acquisition award dated 6[th] July, 2015 may not bemade.

I have considered the rival submissions made by theparties. Only one ground, leaving others, has been raised inthose writ petitions where litigation was earlier made alongwith bunch of writ petitions led by Smt. Rajbala (supra). Inother writ petitions, a prayer is made for withdrawal of thewrit petitions with liberty to file afresh. In view of above,those writ petitions are dismissed where petitioners werenot earlier in the litigation in the bunch of writ petitions ledby Smt. Rajbala, however, it is with liberty to file a freshwrit petition.

In view of above, now this court is considering rest of the writ petitions in which petitioners were earlier also inthe litigation in bunch of writ petitions led by Smt. Rajbala(supra) and were decided vide order dated 27[th] August,2013.

The petitioners have raised many issues for challengeto the acquisition award but presently writ petitions havebeen pressed only on one ground.

It is stated that when earlier writ petitions were filedto challenge the Notification under Section 4 and orderunder Section 5(2) of the Act of 1894, it was renderedinfructuous and accordingly dismissed on the statementmade by the respondents about dropping of the acquisitionproceedings. Once the writ petitions were dismissed on thestatement of the respondents, they could not haveproceeded with the acquisition. For appreciation of theargument, it would be gainful to quote the order passed bythe Coordinate Bench on 27[th] August, 2013. It is quoted thus:

Conclusion

“In all these writ petitions, the primary grievance of thepetitioner is against the proposed demolition of the constructionby the respondents for the reasons that the land in question issought to be acquired for Gulmohar Nagar residential scheme.All the petitioners are Khatedars of the land. The case of thepetitioner is that the action of the respondents is in haste andwithout giving proper hearing or consideration of the objectionsraised by the petitioners that the land in question, is sought tobe acquired and the action of demolition was sought to be takenby the respondents.

At the out set, the learned counsel for the respondents submitsthat the land of the petitioner so proposed for Gulmohar Nagarresidential scheme, has been dropped at the stage ofdeclaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

In that view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated inthe present writ petition as the grievance of the petitioner doesnot subsists.

Consequentially, the writ petition is dismissed as havingbecome infructuous.”

The order quoted above reveals statement by therespondents about dropping of the proceedings. It was astatement subsequent to the declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act of 1894. The respondents did not make statementabout declaration under Section 6, rather, stated thatacquisition proceedings would be dropped at the stage ofdeclaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Thestatement aforesaid may have been made under mistakenbelief or bonafidely but unless applications for recall of theorder dated 27[th] August, 2013 are allowed, the respondentscannot be permitted to act against their own statement. Ifthey are permitted to proceed with the acquisitionproceedings despite their statement for its dropping, itwould be nothing but to allow them to act against their ownstatement. It has serious repercussions because writpetitions were got dismissed after rendering it to beinfructuous based on the statement of the counselappearing for the respondents and then to proceed with thecase, means to mislead the court. Such a practice cannot beallowed, rather, conduct of the respondents itself is coming out from the aforesaid. If practice adopted by therespondents is allowed then in every litigation, they mayconveniently make statement favourable to the petitionersand after getting the writ petitions dismissed as renderedinfructuous, will proceed in the matter adverse to thepetitioners.

In the light of facts given above, the acquisition awardimpugned herein, cannot be allowed to sustain in referenceto those petitioners who were in litigation in the earlierbunch of writ petitions led by Smt. Rajbala (supra).

In the light of the discussion made above, theacquisition award dated 6[th] July, 2015 is quashed qua thosepetitioners who were earlier in litigation in bunch of writpetitions led by Smt. Rajbala (supra). It is, however, madeclear that if order dated 27[th] August, 2013 is recalled on theapplications moved by the respondents, they would be atliberty to proceed further in accordance to law and for it,this order would not come in their way. The petitionerswould, however, be at liberty to challenge the subsequentaction or the award, if passed. It would be on all grounds.

The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid.

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.