MANU/SC/0357/2002

Equivalent Citation: AIR2002SC 2036, 2002(3)ALT10(SC ), JT2002(Suppl1)SC 481, RLW2002(4)SC 481, 2002(4)SC ALE31, (2002)4SC C 666,
[2002]3SC R365, 2002(2)UJ820

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 2910-2913 of 2002
Decided On: 24.04.2002
Appellants:Narpat Singh and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent:Jaipur Development Authority and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.C. Lahoti and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Case Note:
Property - Acquisition of land - Compensation - Allotment of land awarded
along with monetary compensation - Reference court modified the quantum
of compensation by increasing the same while upholding the allotment of
residential plots - Tripartite settlement arrived at between the parties as
per which the claimants were required to pay price for the allotment of
plots @ Rs. 8 per sq. yd. and to give up their right to the enhanced
compensation - In revision, the High court in its impugned judgment held
the compromise decree to be inexecutable as the allotment of land by an
award in land acquisition proceedings suffers from inherent lack of
jurisdiction - Case not found fit for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - Appeals liable to be
dismissed - However to do complete justice two directions issued in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, while maintaining the judgment
of High Court (i) appeal preferred by the State in regard to quantum of
compensation restored for decision on merits and (ii) plots of 250 sq. yds.
to be allotted in some other scheme of the State to the appellants - Section
4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was
published in the State Gazette in June 1960, acquiring land in the localities of
Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur, adjacent to Jaipur city for urban
development, viz. for multi purpose project of constructing legislative assembly, MLA
quarters and planned development of city, popularly known as 'Lal Kothi Scheme'.
The exact public purpose for acquisition is not discernible from the record but that is
immaterial for our present purpose. The Notification under Section 4 was followed by
declaration under Section 6 in May 1961. The persons whose land was acquired
under the scheme include the four appellants before us. On 9.1.1964. the Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing monetary compensation at the rate of Rs.
1800/- per bigha, i.e. approximately 60 paise per sq. yard. In addition to the amount
of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer also directed plots of 2000 or 1000 sq.
yards to be allotted to the appellants in the very scheme for which the land was
acquired. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the Claimants and the State
Government both sought for reference to the Civil court. The reference Court
modified the quantum of compensation by increasing the same to Rs. 4.50p. per sq.

06-03-2020 (Page 1 of 6) www.manupatra.com PIMR – Law

yard while upholding the allotment of residential plots. The State Government
preferred appeals questioning the enhancement. On 17.8.1971, a tripartite settlement
was arrived at as amongst the claimants, the State Government and the Urban
Improvement Trust (the predecessor of Jaipur Development Authority) according to
which it was agreed (a) that the claimants accept the amount of compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer; (b) that the allotment of residential plots to
the claimants measuring 2000 or 1000 sq. yards each in the same scheme shall stand
subject to payment of price by the allottees @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yard which price shall
be paid by the allottees to the UIT deducting therefrom the amount of compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer; and (c) that the contest on the amount of
compensation is given up and the State of Rajasthan and the UIT shall not prosecute
the appeal. A compromise petition, incorporating the terms of settlement, was filed in
the High Court and taken on record disposing of the appeal in terms of settlement.
On 12.10.1982, UIT was dissolved and was replaced by Jaipur Development Authority
which took over the assets and liabilities of UIT.
2 . The appellants field execution application seeking implementation of the award
made by the High Court based on the compromise. For want of contest before the
executing Court, warrants of possession were directed to be issued and in pursuance
thereof possession over the residential plots allotted to the respective appellants was
delivered on 29.5.1984. Laying challenge to the order of executing Court, the State of
Rajasthan and JDA preferred revision petitions before the High Court which were
dismissed. In the special leave petition preferred before this Court, by order dated
15.2.1988, it was directed that the judgment debtors shall have the liberty of raising
their objection to the execution application before the executing Court which shall be
decided after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. On 1.6.1990 the
executing Court rejected the objections filed by the respondents and upheld the
maintainability of the execution application. In civil revisions preferred by the
respondents, the High Court formed an opinion that the judgment of the High Court,
based on the compromise and directing plots to be allotted to the appellants in
addition to the monetary compensation, suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction
and, therefore, was inexecutable. The revision petitions were decided ex-parte.
Armed with the order of High Court, on 12.8.1996, JDA resumed possession over the
residential plots. Since then, the plots are in possession of JDA excepting plot No. C-
89 and C-90 out of the total area whereof, 555 sq. mts. area has been allotted by
JDA to Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited which has constructed a full
fledged building of its own over the land allotted to it.
3. The ex-parte order passed by the High Court allowing the revision petitions by the
respondents was by High Court on the appellants explaining the reasons for their
non-appearance. The revisions were heard afresh. By the impugned judgment dated
23.4.2001, the High Court has once again allowed the revision petitions preferred by
the respondents. The High Court has held the compromise decree to be inexecutable
as, in its opinion, allotment of land by an award in land proceedings suffers from
inherent lack of jurisdiction. In taking this view the High Court has relied on two
decisions of this Court, namely, Jaipur Development Authority v s . Radhey
Shyam & Ors., MANU/SC/1562/1994 : [1994]2SCR1 andSecretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. MANU/SC/1002/1997
: (1997)1SCC35 . These decisions, do not arise out of those very awards whereunder
compensation was fixed and residential plots directed to be allotted to the appellants,
nevertheless, both these decisions are referable to the same acquisition proceedings
under the same notification and declaration under Sections4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act whereby land was acquired for 'Lal Kothi Scheme'.
4 . Shri R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri M.L. Lahoty, Advocate, the

06-03-2020 (Page 2 of 6) www.manupatra.com PIMR – Law

learned counsel for the appellants, have submitted that the High Court has committed
a serious error of law in placing reliance upon the said two decisions of this Court
which dealt with power of the Land Acquisition Officer under Sub-Section (4) of
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the Land Acquisition Officer is
empowered to offer monetary compensation for the land acquired but does not have
any power or jurisdiction in him to part with any part of the land acquired or any
other land either in lieu of or over and above the amount of monetary compensation.
It was held that such direction, if made and incorporated in the award, would be a
nullity and any objection as to inexecutability of the decree as being a nullity could
be successfully raised at the stage of execution. The law so laid down by this Court
does not have applicability to the case of a decree based on compromise more so
when in view of the offer to allot residential plots in that very scheme the claimants
have given up their right to enhanced amount of compensation. The learned senior
counsel further submitted that such an allotment of residential plots finds support
from Section 60 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 as also by the
holding of this Court in Pista Devi's case, MANU/SC/0401/1986 : [1986]3SCR743 :
[1986]3SCR743 , Hans Raj H. Jain vs. State of Maharashtra,
MANU/SC/0543/1993 : (1993)3SCC634 and an unreported decision in H.C.
Venkataswamy & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 14037- 14056 of 1996 decided on 23.9.1996.
5 . There may be merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants. However, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the submission
which was advanced so forcefully. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are
satisfied that the present one is not a fit case where we may exercise the
discretionary jurisdiction vesting in this Court Article 136 of the Constitution
favourably to the appellants and upset the judgment of the High Court. We therefore
propose to dismiss the appeals but subject to directions necessary to meet the ends
of justice and briefly place on record our reasons for doing so.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, a tabulated statement is
incorporated showing the area of land acquired and the area of plot which the
respondents agreed to allot to the appellants in addition to monetary compensation
as per the award.

7. It is clear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, and which
fact has not been disputed on behalf of the appellants, that while the land acquired
from the appellants was uncultivated fallow land with no well, super-structure or
habitat built thereon, what has been offered to each of them is developed plot of
1000 or 2000 square yards area. A developed plot of 1000 or 2000 square yards

06-03-2020 (Page 3 of 6) www.manupatra.com PIMR – Law

means at least 1500 or 3000 square yards of undeveloped land which is more than
the area which has been acquired from them. The concept behind allotting residential
plots to the persons whose land has been acquired to the rehabilitate them and to
give some relief on reasonable terms because of their having been expropriated by
land acquisition proceedings. So far as the appellants are concerned, the allotment of
plots cannot be said to have fulfilled the object of rehabilitating them because though
they lost their land but there is no material placed on record to hold them as having
been rendered destitutes on account of either their residence or their livelihood
having been lost on account of land acquisition proceedings.
8. Secondly, during the course of hearing Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri S.K. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the respondents, extensively road
the decisions of this court in the case of Radhey Shayam and Dauslat Mal Jain, in
particular the latter one wherein this Court has noticed blatant misuse of power
having been made by the holders of public office, bureaucrats and unscrupulous
beneficiaries having combined together and depriving the State of its valuable land
going to the extent of defeating the very public purpose for which acquisitions were
made and plots having been allotted to powerful or affluent persons. The judgment in
Daulat Mal Jain's case makes a reference to the Inquiry Report dated 12.11.1992
of the Lokayukta of Rajasthan under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-
Lokayukta Act, 1973 wherein prima facie finding has been recorded against the then
Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of
Rajasthan-cum-Chairman, JDA, the then Commissioner, JDA and the then Zonal
Officer, Lal Kothi Scheme Having caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful
loss to the Jaipur Development Authority and the public at large by making
allotments of residential plots. Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel produced
for our perusal the Inquiry Report dated 12.11.1992 of the Lokayukta and read out
extensively a few passages therefrom. The Report makes a reference inter alia to the
land allotted to the 12 awardees including the four appellants herein, by way of
compromise although any positive finding of the allotments made to these appellants
being vitiated by fraud on public officer or statutory power is not recorded. The fact
remains that the allotments made even by way of compromise are out of the same
land which was acquired for public purpose and out of which other allotments made
were struck down by this Court in Daulat Mal Jain's case.
9. Thirdly, a finding recorded by the Executing Court in its order dated 1.6.1990, that
before the appellants took over possession over the plots allotted they had not
deposited the full price as was agreed upon, was brought to our notice and the order
says that the correctness of this finding was rather conceded to by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants before the Executing Court.
10. Without entering into the question whether it is permissible for Land Acquisition
Officer or Reference court or the High Court hearing an appeal against an award
made by the Reference Court to record a compromise whereunder the beneficiary of
land acquisition agrees to offer land in lieu of monetary compensation and whether
such a compromise would be legal and not opposed to public policy, we are of the
opinion that the facts and circumstances of this case are enough to decline exercise
of jurisdiction by this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution to the appellants.
The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution on this Court
is discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only
confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on this Court to be exercised for
satisfying the demands of justice. On one land, it is an exceptional power to be
exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extra-ordinary situations or
situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an overriding

06-03-2020 (Page 4 of 6) www.manupatra.com PIMR – Law

power whereunder the court may generously step in to impart justice and remedy
injustice.
The facts and circumstances of this case as have already been set out do not inspire
the conscience of this Court to act in the aid of the appellants. It would, in our
opinion, meet the ends of justice, and the appellants too ought to feel satisfied, if
monetary compensation based on the principles for assessment thereof in land
acquisition cases is awarded and in addition they are given each a plot of reasonable
size to rehabilitate themselves so as to meet the demands of reasonability and
consistency.
11. For this reason the appeals are held liable to be dismissed. Still in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution two directions are warranted
for doing complete justice in the case and not to leave the appellants in lurch -
remediless. And those directions we hereby make. Firstly, the appeals preferred by
the State Government in the Rajasthan High Court were disposed of in terms of
compromise and the monetary compensation was reduced in consideration of the
awardees having been allotted plots. As we are holding the compromise to be vitiated
it would be in the interest of justice that the appeals field by the State Government
are restored for hearing on merits. The High Court shall hear and decide the appeals
appointing the quantum of monetary compensation excluding, from its consideration,
the allotment of plots to the awardees. Secondly, though the allotment of 1000 and
2000 square yards of land in Lal Kothi Scheme as a term of the compromise has been
set aside by the High Court it is directed that the appellants shall be allotted each a
residential plot of an area about 250 square yards in some other scheme of the JDA
at the rates effective and applicable on 17.8.1971, the date on which the compromise
was arrived at. Such allotment shall be made and possession given within a period of
three months from today. This direction we make in order to maintain consistency
and uniformity inasmuch as we find almost all the awardees having been allotted
plots and similar directions were made by this Court also in Daulat Mal Jain's case
(supra), vide para 31. In case of any dispute arising in the matter of allotment of
plots in terms of this direction, we allow liberty to the parties to approach the High
Court of Rajasthan and seek directions preferably by the same Bench which will be
hearing the appeals against the award made by the Reference Court.
12. It was vehemently contented on behalf of the respondents that the allotment of
plots forming part of compromise should be sustained because the appellants have,
in view of the plots having been allotted to them, followed by delivery of possession,
alienated the plots or created third-party interest therein and they would be put to
serious inconvenience or placed in an awkward situation as the third-parties would
be after them while the allotted plots are lost by them. We are not inclined to agree.
If the appellants have just alienated the plots allotted to them then securing of such
plots was their adventure for profit and not a need for rehabilitation. Then, though
they may lose the plots but they would be getting monetary compensation, solatium
and interest in lieu of the land of which they have been expropriated. This must
satisfy them. It was also submitted that the policy decision dated December 6, 2001
of the State of Rajasthan recognises encroachers being settled in other schemes of
JDA and if the encroachers enjoy the patronage of the State Government why not the
appellants who should not be compared with encroachers who are law-breakers. We
need not comment on the policy of the State Government recognizing an encroacher's
right to allotment of land. It is the wisdom of State and we are not aware whether the
policy is guided by socially beneficial consideration of providing roof over the head
of the deprived and poor or is a politically motivated policy of appeasement. For our
purpose the relevant consideration is the decision of this Court directing allotment of
250 square yards plot elsewhere to some such allottees whose allotment of plots in
Lal Kothi Scheme was not upheld and maintaining consistency therewith. May be

06-03-2020 (Page 5 of 6) www.manupatra.com PIMR – Law

some awardees unscrupulously or by connivance or collusion and by lapse of time
have succeeded in retaining allotment of larger plots in this vary scheme but such
arbitrary or unreasonable allotments cannot be cited as precedent in support of
misguided plea of equality. Appellants' prayer for upholding the compromise-based
allotment of plots or in the alternative plots of lesser size being allotted out of the
land acquired for this very scheme cannot be entertained much less allowed as that
would be to some extent destructive of the purpose of acquisition. The land acquired
must be used for the public purpose for which it has been acquired.
1 3 . The appeals are disposed of maintaining the judgment of the High Court but
subject to the directions made hereinabove. Costs are incurred.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

06-03-2020 (Page 6 of 6) www.manupatra.com PIMR – Law