Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Phoolchand And Anr vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:37368-Db) on 20 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 254/1998
1. Lrs. of Late Shri Phool Chand
1/1. Smt. Raju Devi.
1/2. Suresh Kumar
1/3 Hemant Kumar
1/4. Naveen Kumar
1/5 Lokesh Kumar.
2. Mangi Bai W/o Sunder Lal Ji Mahajan.
2/1. Shri sunder Lal Seth, Aged 60 years (Husband) (Deleted).
2/2 Jay Kumar Seth S/o Surendra Lal Seth, Age 36 years.
2/3. Ajay Kumar Seth S/o Surendra Lal Seth, Age 28 years.
All R/o Near Bus Stand, Dhariwad, Zila Pratapgarh.
2/4 Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Dinesh Kumar, D/o Surendra Lal Seth,
Age 40 years.
2/5 Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Babu Lal, D/o Surendra Lal Seth, Age
38 years.
(Both R/o Parsola, Pratapgarh).
2/6. Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Praveen Kumar Ji, age 31 years, R/o
Narwali, Banswara.
2/7. Smt. Chetna Devi W/o Jayprakash, age 30 years, R/o
Salumbar, District Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Dy. Secretary Krishi (Group - 2B)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.) Vallabh Nagar, District
Udaipur.
3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Anirudh Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Mohit Sharma for
Mr. VD Dadhich
Mr. Pawan Bharti
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
20/08/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
06.11.1997, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants-
petitioners was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted
that there is total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of
Section 4 and 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (hereinafter
referred as ‘the Act of 1994’). He submits that though the
grounds were raised in the writ petition for non-compliance of the
provisions of Section 4 and 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1994, but the same have not been taken note of by the learned
Single Judge while deciding the writ petition and thus committed
an error while passing the order dated 06.11.1997. He submits
that during the pendency of this appeal, the award had been
passed, however, the possession of the land still continues to be
held by the appellants.
4. Learned counsel further submits that since there is non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of Act of 1994 and the
possession is still being vested with the appellants, therefore, the
land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent – State
are dehors the law and thus, the same may be quashed and set
aside. He, therefore, prays that the judgment under appeal may
be quashed and set aside and the appeal as well as writ petition
filed by the appellants-petitioners may be allowed.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – State
submits that while the matter was argued before the learned
Single Judge, the grounds raised in the writ petition were not
pressed, therefore, the same have not been considered while
passing the order dated 06.11.1997. He submits that in these
circumstances, the remedy available to the appellants was only of
filing review petition before the learned Single Judge. Learned
counsel submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the
award of the land in question has been passed and the State has
deposited the entire amount before the Competent Authority.
6. Learned counsel further submits that after passing the award
and deposition of the amount awarded, the possession of the land
has also been taken over. He submits that Moka report dated
01.04.2000 of Tehsildar and the documents placed on record goes
to show that the land stands mutated in the name of Krishi Mandi.
He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gillapukri Tea
Company Ltd. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 388 has held that once
the award has been passed and the possession of the land has
been handed over to the Government, the land acquisition
proceedings could not have been reopened. He, therefore, submits
that the present appeal may be dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have gone through the relevant record of the case.
8. In the order dated 06.11.1997, the learned Single Judge has
taken note of the sole argument raised before it that a prayer has
been made for quashing the declaration under Section 6 on the
ground that it has been published after a lapse of one year.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]
Further, learned Single Bench has noted that the last publication of
Section 4 Notification was done on 02.08.1989 and thereafter the
Notification under Section 17(A) readwith Section 6 was issued on
25.01.1990 and was ultimately published in the Gazette on
26.07.1990, therefore, the publication of Section 6 Notification is
well within one year and therefore, the writ petition was
dismissed.
9. We note that the points raised in appeal, though were part of
pleadings in the writ petition, however, the same were not pressed
into service. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the same
at this stage, more particularly, when the award has already been
passed and possession of the land had been taken over by the
State Government. It is further noted that before the appeal was
filed against the order dated 06.11.1997, the possession of the
land in question was taken over and a Moka Report dated
01.04.2000 (under the Signatures of the Tehsildar and other
Officials) to that effect is placed on record. We further note that
after the award and taking over the possession of the land, the
land stands mutated in the name of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
10. The fact that the possession was taken over is also
established from the interim order passed by this court on
07.04.2000, wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court has noted
the fact of the possession having been taken over.
11. In these circumstances, we are of the view that once the
award has been passed and the possession of the land in question
has already been taken over, therefore, we would not like to upset
all those proceedings at this stage in light of the observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case or Assam
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(supra), wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
17. In the above scenario, the arguments of the first
respondent are untenable. Once the award has been approved,
compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the
land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition
proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way
of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4
of the L.A. Act by the Government. Contrary to the first
respondent’s contention, the question of lapsing under Section
24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the
award was approved on 05.03.2010.
18. So far as the second set of acquisition proceedings are
concerned, without addressing the factual veracity of the State
Government’s contention that the second award was meant to
be only in respect of landowners not covered by the original
award, we are of the opinion that it would not have been
possible for the State Government to initiate acquisition
proceedings in respect of already acquired land such as that of
the first respondent herein. This position has been affirmed by
this Court in D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. V. State of Karnataka &
Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 656 in the following terms:
“17. Even otherwise, if land already stands
acquired by the Government and if the same
stands vested in the Government there is no
question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a
second notification for the Government cannot
acquire its own land. The same is by now settled
by various decision of this Court in a catena of
cases.
18. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995
Supp (3) SCC 249 this Court has held that the
Land Acquisition Act does not contemplate or
provide for the acquisition of any interest
belonging to the Government in the land on
acquisition This position was reiterated in a
subsequent decision of this Court in Meher Rusi
Dalal v. Union of India, (2004) 7 SCC 362 in paras
15 and 16 of the said judgment, this Court has
held that the High Court clearly erred in setting
aside the order of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer declining a reference since it is settled law
that in land acquisition proceedings the
Government cannot and does not acquire its own
interest. While laying down the aforesaid law, this
Court has referred to its earlier decision in
Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji
Mistri, AIR 1955 SC 298: (1955) 1 SCR 1311″
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37368-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-254/1998]
The recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8
SCC 129 has also affirmed that once possession is taken by the
State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of
the landowner ceases. We find no reason to deviate from this
settled position of law and thus are unable to agree with the
High Court’s reliance on the letters dated 21.07.2012 and
06.01.2014 to nullify the original award and allow fresh
acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondent’s land
which had already been acquired and has been under the
possession of the appellant since 11.06.2010.
19. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeed
and are accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are
set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
12. In view of the discussion made above and taking into
consideration the fact that after the award having been passed,
the possession of the land has been taken over the by the
respondents and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Assam Industrial Development corporation Ltd.
(supra), we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
13. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal Writ fails, and the
same is dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
1-nitin/-
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:29:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)