Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Takhat Singh Kothari vs State Of Raj. And Ors. … on 12 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:30575]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6347/2014
Takhat Singh Kothari S/o Shri Nana Lal Ji Kothari, Aged 65 years,
R/o Village Purohiton Ki Madari, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. At
present R/o 432, Bhupalpura, Udaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Urban Development
and Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, through the
Secretary.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipuir.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Counsel assisted
by Mr. Khet Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur
Mr. Shubham Ojha
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
12/07/2025
1. The present petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
(i) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the Land
acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated
28.10.1988 Ann.2 under section 4 of the Act of 1894
published in official Gazette on 21.06.1990 and
declaration under section 6 of the Act 1894 issued on
17.11.1989 Ann.3 published in official Gazette on
06.12.1990 pertaining to Araji No.353 to 363 in Village
Purohiton Ki Madari District Udaipur may kindly be
quashed qua the petitioner and the said acquisition
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:36:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30575] (2 of 5) [CW-6347/2014proceedings regarding acquisition of Aaraji No.353 to
363 may kindly be delcared lapsed as per provisions of
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
(ii) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in
favour of the petitioner.
2. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner (Takhat Singh Kothari) submitted that true it is, the
present writ petition was filed for declaring the acquisition
proceedings lapsed, as provided under section 24(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Act of 2013’) but, however, the land which was acquired
for the purpose of Transport Nagar has not be put to use for such
purpose and the Urban Development Authority has proposed to
develop a residential colony on said land.
3. He submitted that on the one hand such purpose has not
been achieved and on the other hand plots/agriculture land
parcels of various persons which were also acquired under the
very same acquisition proceedings have been converted for other
use or patta under section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956 have been issued. He added that various illegalities
have been committed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has
moved an amendment application bringing all these facts and
documents on record and has sought an amendment praying that
the land acquisition proceedings so initiated by the respondents be
quashed.
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:36:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30575] (3 of 5) [CW-6347/2014
5. Mr. Vijay Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent at the
outset submitted that the issue, which has been canvassed by the
petitioner seeking lapsing of the proceedings has been decided
finally by Five Judges Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal &
Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 negating the petitioner’s
contention, wherein it has been held that in the case like one in
the hand, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Trust further argued
that the amendment can also not be allowed as petitioner’s earlier
writ petition had been dismissed by Single Judge vide order dated
18.03.2008 and said order had been affirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court by order dated 09.02.2009 and Special Leave
Petition thereagainst was also rejected on 14.09.2009 in
petitioner’s own case titled as Takhat Singh Kothari vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17499/2009.
7. Mr. Purohit submitted that in any case, the plea of de-
acquisition cannot be raised before this Court, as has been held by
the Single Judge in petitioner’s own case, which has been affirmed
by the Division Bench wherein it has been held that it is entirely a
prerogative of the State to de-acquire the land.
8. Learned counsel argued that neither the amendment can
be allowed nor can the writ petition be kept pending, as the
petitioner has been left with no case worth consideration.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the view that the petitioner’s plea, which has been taken in the
present writ petition cannot sustain in light of the judgment of
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:36:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30575] (4 of 5) [CW-6347/2014
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra).
10. Adverting to petitioner’s amendment application, this Court
is firmly of the opinion that the amendment, which has been
sought is not only belated, but will change the entire nature of the
writ petition. The present petition, which was filed seeking a
declaration that the proceedings be declared to have lapsed in
terms of section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 will be changed to a writ
seeking de-acquisition of the land. That apart, the petitioner’s
earlier writ petition mentioned in Para No.6 above has already
been dismissed. Hence, this issue is barred by res-judicata.
11. The application for amendment is, therefore, rejected.
12. So far as petitioner’s contention that his plea for de-
acquiring the land is pending before the State Government is
concerned, it is to be noted that this Court has already held in
petitioner’s own case that direction to de-acquire cannot be
issued.
13. Learned Senior Counsel produced note-sheets showing that
his request for de-acquisition was under active consideration of
the State Government. Although, he could not show any
proceeding or note-sheet drawn after 2013, but asserted that the
same is still pending.
14. Be that as it may. In case, petitioner’s request for de-
acquisition is still pending consideration of the State Government,
the same be decided in accordance with law.
15. The petitioner may file a fresh representation alongwith all
the documents and a certified copy of the order instant, which
shall be considered by the competent authority of the State
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:36:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30575] (5 of 5) [CW-6347/2014
Government within a period of two months from today, in case his
request for keeping his land out of acquisition is still pending.
16. While considering the petitioner’s representation/application,
the State Government shall take into account various
developments, which have so far taken place subsequent to the
representation, which the petitioner claims to have filed in 2013.
17. Since, the writ petition as filed involve the plea of lapsing,
the writ petition is dismissed in light of the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra).
18. Both the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to
possession and title with regard to the subject land for a period of
two months.
19. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
298-Mak/-
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:36:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)