Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Jaipur Development Authority vs Sai Darshan Hotels And Ors on 16 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 658/2010
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3857/2003
Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary Jaipur
Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
----Appellant-Respondent
Versus
1. Sai Darshan Hotels And Motels Private Limited, D-169,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017 Through Its Director
------Respondent-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
----Proforma Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kuri with
Mr. Ayush Sharma,
Mr. Dharma Ram and
Ms. Nandini Mirdha
For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. General
assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
and Ms. Dhriti Laddha
Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Senior
Advocate assisted by
Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma,
Mr. Abhishek Kaushik,
Ms. Khusboo Rathore,
Mr. Rachit Sharma and
Mr. Madhav Dadhich
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Judgment
Date of conclusion of Arguments : 3rd February 2026
Date on which judgment was reserved : 3rd February 2026
Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full judgment
Date of pronouncement : 16th March, 2026
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (2 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
(Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)
1. The present special appeal has a chequered history. The brief
facts need to be noticed are that The Jaipur Development
Authority (for short, "JDA") has preferred this special appeal
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
06.08.2009 whereby he allowed the writ petition and quashed the
order dated 23.06.2009.
2. Before further going into the aspect regarding the aforesaid
impugned judgment of the Single Bench, it would be appropriate
to notice certain events which are pertinent for deciding the case.
3. On 21.08.1969, a notification was issued by the State under
Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short,
"the Act of 1953") for acquiring the lands. On 02.08.1971, the
land acquisition officer recommended acquisition of the land and
after enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, on 12.04.1973, Section
6 notification was published acquiring land measuring 23 Bigha
16.5 Biswa in Khasra Nos. 35 to 43, 43/222, 43/223 and 43/224
in village Chainpura Tehsil Sanganer. Final award was passed by
the land acquisition officer on 09.04.1981 awarding a sum of
Rs.1,38,180/- each in favour of the Khatedars namely Adyodhya
Prasad and Shri Daulat Babu sons of Shri Kashi Prasad Tiwari, who
was the original Khatedar of the land in question. On 04.05.1981,
the predecessor of JDA i.e. UIT sent a cheque of Rs.2,76,360/- to
the land acquisition officer.
4. A reference was made to enhance the compensation to the
Civil Court on 06.06.1981 under Section 18 of the Act. However,
the enhanced compensation was not deposited. On 22.10.1983,
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
possession of the land was taken by the JDA, after it came into
existence vide notification dated 12.09.1982.
5. The Khatedars also challenged the notification under Section
6 of the Act of 1953 before the High Court but the same was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Special Appeals were filed
but the same were also dismissed. Thereafter, SLP was preferred
by the Khatedars before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging
the notification but the same was also dismissed by common order
dated 29.08.1983. The widow of the original Khatedar Smt. Savitri
Devi had executed a sale deed with regard to the same property
with one Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti on 05.07.1973.
Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti submitted a writ petition
being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2090/1987 challenging the
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 which was
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 29.08.1996. Against
the said judgment, D.B. Special Appeal was preferred, which too
was dismissed on 16.09.1996. Thereafter, one Udit Gopal Beri and
10 other persons, who were members of the Society, filed writ
petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.95/1997 and the same
came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated
05.09.2000. Other members also filed writ petition being S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2222/1999 [Pramila Kumari and Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.] and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2225/1999
[Smt. Anupama Agrawal and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.]
and the same were dismissed by the Single Bench on 29.10.2001.
The plea for regularization was raised but the same was also
rejected. The petitioner company came up and filed the petition
before this Court stating that it had acquired the rights of the land
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
through the assignees of the Khatedars and submitted two
applications on 29.03.2003 and 01.05.2003 to the State
Government for securing allotment of 15% developed land in lieu
of surrender of the land.
6. It is pertinent to note that the State Government, in view of
the policy decision taken, issued a circular dated 13.12.2001 and
issued directions to the effect that allotment of 15% developed
land be made in lieu of monetary compensation for the land which
had been surrendered under acquisition. In view of the said
circular, the petitioner had submitted aforesaid applications dated
29.03.2003 and 01.05.2003.
7. However, when the facts pertaining to dismissal of the writ
petition came to the notice of the Government, the order for
reserving 15% land for allotment in lieu of compensation was kept
in abeyance. A writ petition was, therefore, filed by the petitioner
challenging the said order which came to be allowed by the
impugned judgment. The State Government preferred a Special
Appeal before the Division Bench, however, the Division Bench
dismissed the Special Appeal on the ground of delay. Challenge
was made to the order passed by the Division Bench before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and while the delay was condoned by the
Apex Court, the SLP was dismissed on merits. The State
Government preferred a revision petition but the same was also
dismissed by the Apex Court.
8. The Jaipur Development Authority preferred appeal against
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench, vide its judgment dated 14.09.2018, dismissed the appeal.
The order passed on 14.09.2018 in the present case was
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.6212/2019 and Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following
order:
"Leave granted.
This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, has passed an order on 14.05.2024:
"The dismissal of SLP (C) No.29624/2014
preferred by the State of Rajasthan impugning the
order dated 05.02.2014 in intra-court appeal/DBSA
(Writ) No.934/2013 passed by the High Court of
Rajasthan, in our opinion, will not result in either
merger or res-judicata. The Division Bench of the
High Court, in the order dated 05.02.2014, had
dismissed the intra-court appeal preferred by the
State of Rajasthan not on merits, but by refusing to
condone the delay of 1443 days. As the intra-court
appeal has been dismissed on the ground of
limitation, the doctrine of merger does not apply.
Recording the aforesaid, we would reject the
submission made on behalf of the respondents that
dismissal of SLP (C) No.29624/2014 by this Court,
should result in dismissal of the present special leave
petition preferred by the Jaipur Development
Authority.
We must note two submissions made by the
respondents. The first, relies upon the order dated
11.04.2022 passed in Misc. Application No.600/2022
in Civil Appeal No.1688/2022 titled "Govt. of NCT
Delhi Department of Land and Building & Anr. v.
Sukhbir Singh & Ors.". The facts of the said case are
entirely different, for the Delhi Development Authority
had filed a Civil Appeal against the same judgment,
which was heard and dismissed on merits. Thus, the
doctrine of merger applies. The second submission is
that the appeal preferred before this Court on behalf
of the State of Rajasthan was supported by an
affidavit filed by an officer of the JDA. This, in our
opinion, is immaterial and inconsequential.
The contention of the respondent that the JDA is
not an aggrieved party and, therefore, could not have
preferred the intra-court appeal, is left open at this
stage."
The matter has come up for hearing today. Learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents
states that he would not oppose a direction being
given by this Court to the Division Bench of the High
Court to hear the D.B. Special Appeal No.658/2010 on
merits.
We record that the statement made is just and fair.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated
14.09.2018 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
We clarify that the order dated 14.05.2024, as
quoted above, only decides the issue with regard to the
doctrine of merger and res-judicata. All other pleas and
contentions of the parties are left open.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
9. Thus, the case has again come before us for hearing.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that
there is no occasion for the JDA to be aggrieved of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge as the respondent No.1 has
nowhere challenged the acquisition proceedings.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge could have been assailed only
by the State Government as the learned Single Judge has only
quashed and set aside the order dated 23.06.2009 whereby the
State Government’s earlier two orders dated 12.05.2003 and
19.05.2003 allotting Plot No.7, Airport Plaza, Jaipur admeasuring
9000 square meters in lieu of granting compensation for the
acquisition was kept in abeyance. So far as JDA is concerned, it
has received the land in question and has also taken possession of
the said land.
12. He has further pointed out that the State Appeal has been
dismissed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The
observations of the Apex Court were made only with reference to
the question of doctrine of merger and res judicata while leaving
all other pleas open to be examined by this Court. He, therefore,
submits that the present special appeal filed by the JDA
challenging the merits of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, although may not be hit by the principle of res judicata or
by the doctrine of merger, independently would not survive as it
does not take away any of the rights of JDA nor it affects JDA’s
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
right to possession of the land acquired for it by the State
Government.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant JDA
has vehemently argued the case stating that the writ petition filed
by the respondent No.1- writ petitioner itself was having no locus,
moreso, the earlier petitions filed by other stakeholders had
already been dismissed from time to time by this Court, as has
been noticed by us supra.
14. Learned counsel submits that there was no occasion for
allotting 9000 square meters of land to the writ petitioner by the
State Government and the State Government’s action was based
on fraud and the orders had been passed by facilitating bribe to
the then Ministers and others. Therefore, the land is required to
be surrendered. He submits that as the land had already been
acquired and possession has already been taken over, there was
no occasion for the word “surrender” to be used by the learned
Single Judge and in lieu of surrender, there was no occasion of any
land being allotted to the writ petitioner. A false representation of
fact by trickery order sheet cannot create a case in favour of the
writ petitioner. He relies on the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge to submit that as the concerned persons had expired,
the proceedings were dropped against the concerned Ministers
and other Officers of the State. The advantage, therefore, could
not be extended to the writ petitioner.
15. While hearing the case after directions of the Supreme Court,
we found that on 10.02.2025 the Division Bench has asked the
State Government for placing on record the relevant facts, but
instead an affidavit was filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
4, JDA instead of an Officer of the State Government. Hence, the
said affidavit was, therefore, rejected. The State Government
thereafter, filed an affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Department
of UDH, which was completely evasive and did not inform the
Court as to what is the present position and we, therefore,
directed on 23.01.2026 to the Principal Secretary, Department of
UDH to file an affidavit clearly speaking out as to whether the
amount of compensation and enhanced compensation both were
paid or deposited or not and also give out the amount, date of
deposit, etc. Thereafter, affidavit of the Principal Secretary, UDH
was filed in compliance of the order dated 10.02.2025,
06.01.2026 and 23.01.2026. It will be apposite to quote the said
affidavit, wherein from para No.2 to 4 orders passed by this Court
have been quoted and the contents commence from para No.5,
which reads as under:
“5. That in compliance of the aforesaid order, it is submitted
that on 9.4.1981 the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
for monetary compensation to be paid to khatedars i.e. Shri
Ayodhya Prasad and Shri Daulat Babu to the tune of Rs.
1,38,180/- each. From 15.4.1981 to 27.10.1990 various
notices inviting the khatedars to collect the cheques from the
office of Land Acquisition Officer were issued. However, no one
collected the cheques. On the request of the Land Acquisition
Officer, fresh cheques were issued in the name of Civil Judge,
Jaipur City Jaipur on 8.1.1997. A copy of the letter dated
8.1.1997 in this regard is filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE RA-1. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly
vide letter dated 8.1.1997 sent cheque No. 169877 of Rs.
1,38,180/- and cheque No.169876 of Rs. 1,38,180/- to the
Civil Judge Jaipur City, Jaipur. A copy of the letter dated
8.1.1997 in this regard is filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE RA-2.
6. That on query, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur
Metropolitan-1 vide letter dated 30.1.2026 has clarified that
entry in relation to deposit of cheque No. 169876 of Rs.
1,38,180/-and cheque No. 169877 of Rs. 1,38,180/- of
Khatedar Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari and Daulat Babu S/o Kashi
Prasad exist in the cheque register of the court, but there is
no entry/mention of receipt of payment of the amount of
aforesaid cheques in the register. A copy of the letter dated(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]30.1.2026 is submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
RA-3.
7. That on a reference being made by the khatedars, the
Reference Court on 24.3.1990 enhanced the cash
compensation. A copy of the judgment dated 24.3.1990 is
filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-4.
8. That on verification of the official record, nothing has been
found with regard to payment of the enhanced compensation
as per judgment dated 24.3.1990 to the concerned khatedars
or deposit thereof with the civil court. Hence, it can be said
that the enhanced compensation was neither paid to the
khatedars, nor deposited with the court.
9. That this affidavit is being filed in compliance of the orders
dated 10.2.2015, 6.1.2026 and 23.1.2026 passed by the
Hon’ble Court and the same may kindly be taken on record.”
16. We are, thus, satisfied that neither the original khatedars,
nor their assignees including last assignee, the respondent No.1,
have received any monetary compensation. The original amount,
as assessed by way of compensation, was also deposited, but has
not been paid.
17. The word “paid” has been explained in Indore
Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors.: (2020) 8
SCC 129, the Apex Court held as under:
“4. The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all
beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit
of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the “landowners” as
on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4
of the Act of 1894. ”
18. Thus, we are satisfied that although the State Government
has taken over possession of property in question and the
respondent is not challenging the acquisition, their right to receive
compensation in lieu of acquisition still survives as they have
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
obtained the rights and interests of the earlier stakeholders from
whom the land was acquired and possessed by the State
Government. It is, therefore, the State Government and its policy
which would apply with regard to compensation. The policy was
issued initially by the State Government, known as Regularization
Policy in the year 1994 which was later amended from time to
time in 1996 and on 10.07.1999, 26.05.2000 and subsequently on
13.12.2001 and 26.07.2002. As per the Policy of the State
Government, if the interested persons whose land has been
acquired, surrender all their rights, they would get 15% developed
land in lieu of monetary compensation subject to withdrawal of
pending litigation. It has come on record that the respondent No.1
had moved applications on 19.03.2003 and 01.05.2003 applying
to the State Government for grant of 15% developed land in lieu
of monetary compensation and had promised to withdraw all its
pending litigation. An order was passed on 12.05.2003 by the
State Government directing the JDA to allot plot No.7
admeasuring 9000 square meter and another order was passed on
12.05.2003 itself directing the respondent No.1 to withdraw all the
pending litigation. On 19.05.2003 again, the State Government
directed JDA to obtain an affidavit from the respondent No.1 in
regard to withdrawal of pending litigation and the respondent No.1
withdrew the SLP pending before the Supreme Court with regard
to said acquisition and claim of compensation. All other pending
cases were also withdrawn without seeking any regularization of
part of acquired land and only claimed 15% developed land in
terms of the policy dated 13.12.2001, as amended on 26.07.2002.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
19. We notice that the learned Single Judge in his judgment
dated 06.08.2009 while upholding the right of respondent No.1-
writ petitioner to get 15% developed land, found that the order of
allotting plot No.7, admeasuring 9000 square meter at Airport
Plaza, Jaipur had not been withdrawn by the State Government
and vide impugned order dated 23.06.2003, the order had already
been kept in abeyance. The learned Single Judge found that
orders passed earlier on 12.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 could not be
objected to and the State Government was bound by the principle
of promissory estoppel as the other party, namely respondent
No.1, had performed its obligation in terms of the orders dated
12.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 and withdrawn the cases pending
before the Supreme Court and at other places. A “U” turn made by
the State Government at the behest of JDA was, therefore, held to
be unjustified and illegal and violative of doctrine of legitimate
expectation.
20. The argument being advanced by the JDA before us opposing
allotment of 9000 square meters of land to the writ petitioner
appears to be solely on the basis that the said 9000 square
meters of land has become a prime property and the State
Government’s action of allotting such a land may cause loss to the
JDA.
21. It also appears that the JDA also opposes the action on the
ground that the concerned Minister has supposedly taken a bribe
for issuing the orders. We, therefore, need to examine the aspect
regarding payment of compensation and whether the respondent
No.1 had a right to receive 15% developed land in lieu of
compensation. For the said purpose, it would be apposite to quote
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
the policy decision of the State Government dated 13.12.2001, as
amended on 26.07.2002 as under:
“jktLFkku ljdkj ds ifji= la[;k ,Q- 6¼9½
ufovk@89 fnukad 21-9-1999 ds }kjk futh
[kkrsnkjksa ls le>kSrs ls Hkwfe izkIr djus gsrq
Hkwfe vokfIr ds izdj.kksa esa
[kkrsnkjksa@Hkw&Lokfe;ksa dks mudh
vokIrk/khu Hkwfe dh ,ot esa 15 izfr’kr fodflr
Hkw&[k.M fn;s tkus dk izko/kku fd;k x;k FkkA
mDr ifji= esa ,sls izdj.k ftuesa vokMZ ?kksf”kr
gks pqdk gS rFkk eqvkots dh jkf’k dk Hkqxrku
fd;k tk pqdk gS esa 15 izfr’kr Hkw[k.M ugha
fn;s tkus ds funsZ’k fn;s x;s gSaA
bl lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku esa vk;k gS
fd Hkwfe vokfIr ds ,sals vusd izdj.k vHkh Hkh
yafcr gSa ftuesa vokMZ tkjh gks pqdk gS] ysfdu
dkLrdkjksa dks vHkh rd eqvkots dh jkf’k dk
Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tk ldk gS vFkkZr~
[kkrsnkjksa dks jkf’k dh izfIr fdlh Hkh dkj.ko’k
ugha gks ik;h gSA bu dkLrdkjksa }kjk iwoZ esa
udn eqvkots ds LFkku ij fodflr Hkwfe fn;s tkus
ds izko/kku dh tkudkjh ugha gksus ds dkj.k ifji=
esa of.kZr dkykof/k esa fodYi izLrqr ugha fd;s tk
lds gSaA vr% jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl laca/k esa lexzrk
ls fopkj dj ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ,sls iqjkus
izdj.k ftuesa vokMZ tkjh gks pqdk gS] yssdu
[kkrsnkj@Hkw&Lokeh dks vHkh rd udn eqvkots
dk Hkqxrku fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls ugha gks ldk gS]
dks ,d volj vkSj iznku fd;k tkosA vr% vc ;g
izko/kku fd;k tkrk gS fd ,sls
[kkrsnkjksa@Hkw&Lokfe;ksa }kjk viuk fodYi
fnukad 28-2-2002 rd izLrqr fd;s tk ldsaxs rFkk
mUgsa 15 izfr’kr fodflr Hkw&[k.M lEcfU/kr
laLFkku dh vkoaVu lfefr }kjk jkT; ljdkj dh iwoZ
vuqefr ds i’pkr~ fd;k tk ldsxkA ;fn fdlh laLFkk
esa igys ls vkoaVu lfefr dk xBu ughas fd;k x;k
gS rks t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k o jktLFkku vkoklu
e.My ds vfrfjDr lHkh uxj fodkl U;klksa ,oe~
uxjikfydk@ifj”knksa o fuxe }kjk de ls de rhu
vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa tuizfrfuf/k;ksa dh bl iz;kstukFkZ
lfefr xfBr dh tkosxh tks viuh flQkfj’k laLFkk dks(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]nsxhA bldk jkT; ljdkj dh iwoZ vuqefr ls gh
vkoaVu fd;k tk ldsxkA
Hkfo”; esa Hkwfe vokfIr ds izdj.kksa esa
Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk 9 ds uksfVl ds
vUrxZr [kkrsnkj dks lwfpr fd;k tkosxk fd og udn
eqvkots ds lFkku ij 15 izfr’kr fodflr vkoklh;
Hkw[k.M Hkh ys ldrs gSaA bl laca/k esa
[kkrsnkj@Hkw&Lokeh }kjk viuk fodYi
tokc@Dyse is’k djuk gksxkA Hkwfe vokfIr
vf/kdkjh /kkjk 12¼2½ Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e]
1984 ds uksfVl esa iqu% ;g vafdr djsxk fd
[kkrsnkj@Hkw&Lokeh mDr uksfVl ds ,d ekg ds
vUnj 15 izfr’kr Hkw&[k.M ds fy;s vkosnu djsxkA
rRi’pkr~ lEcfU/kr laLFkk mls 5 ekg esa
vfuok;Z :i ls 15 izfr’kr fodflr vkoklh; Hkw&[k.M
vkoaVu dj dCtk laHkyk nsxhA
iqjkus ,sls izdj.kksa ftuesa vHkh rd vokMZ ?
kksf”kr ugha gqvk gS rFkk Hkfo”; esa vokfIr ds
izdj.kksa esa 15 izfr’kr fodflr Hkw&[k.M fn;s
tkus ds lEcU/k esa] nksuksa gh ekeyksa esa
fuEufyf[kr ‘krsZa Hkh ykxw gksxh%&
1- vokIr’kqnk Hkwfe ds cnys esa nh tkus okyh
Hkwfe fodflr vkoklh; Hkwfe gh gksxh] okf.kfT;d
ughaA
2- vokIr’kqnk Hkwfe ds cnys esa fodflr Hkwfe
lkekU;r;k mlh ;kstuk {ks= esa ,oa mlh LFkku ij
nh tk,xh tgka Hkwfe vokIr dh xbZ gSA lacaf/kr
laLFkk }kjk de ls de rhu vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oe~
tuizfrfuf/k;ksa dh ,d vkoaVu lfefr xfBr dh tkosxh
tks ,sls izdj.kksa esa vkoafVr dh tkus okyh
Hkwfe ckcr viuk fu.kZ; ys ldsaxhA
1
[3. vokIr’kqnk Hkwfe ds cnys fodflr Hkwfe izkIr
djus dk fodYi nsus ij vokIr’kqnk Hkwfe esa
fufeZr Hkou gksus dh fLFkfr esa [kkrsnkj
dks ;Fkk laHko 15 izfr’kr Hkwfe mlh LFkku ij
vkoafVr dh tk;s] tgka ij mldk fufeZr Hkou fLFkr
gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa [kkrsnkj dks fufeZr Hkou dk
i`Fkd ls dksbZ eqvkotk ns; ugha gksxkA
ysfdu ;fn fdlh dkj.k o’k [kkrsnkj dks ml LFkku ij
15 izfr’kr Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k tkuk laHko ugha
gks] tgak ij mldk fufeZr Hkou fLFkr gS] rks
fufeZr Hkou dk udn eqvkotk i`Fkd ls ns; gksxk]
2
[4. 15 izfr’kr fodflr Hkw&[k.M
[kkrsnkj@Hkw&Lokeh vFkok mlds }kjk jftLVMZ
eq[rkjukesa esa vf/kd`r eq[rkjvke vFkok [kkl
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]dks vkoafVr fd;k tk ldsxkA blds vfrfjDr
[kkrsnkj@Hkw&Lokeh vFkok mlds eq[rkj dh vksj
ls ukfer O;fDr;ksa dks Hkh fodflr Hkw&[k.M
vkoafVr fd;k tk ldsxk] ysfdu ,sls O;fDr;ksa }kjk
mUgsa vkoafVr Hkw&[k.M ij ml {ks= dh Hkwfe
vkoklh; vkjf{kr nj ds vk/kkj ij LVkEi M~;wVh ns;
gksxhA]
___________________
1- ifji= Øekad i- 6¼19½ ufofo@89 fnukad 17-1-2002 }kjk
izfrLFkkfir fd;k x;kA
2- ifji= Øekad ,Q- 7¼70½ ufofo@3@2002 fnukad 26-7-
2002 }kjk izfrLFkkfir fd;k x;kA”
22. It may be pertinent to mention that the circular dated
13.12.2001 was further clarified on 19.03.2002 that the State
Government would be free to allot 15% developed land to
concerned khatedar, which may be of any nature, whether
commercial or residential. The circular dated 19.03.2002 reads as
under:
“bl foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k ,Q-6¼19½ ufofo@89
fnukad 13-12-2001 ds }kjk vokIr ‘kqnk Hkwfe
ds cnys 15 izfr’kr fodflr Hkwfe vkoafVr djus ds
laca/k esa funsZ’k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks ftlesa ,d ‘krZ
;g Hkh yxk;h x;h Fkh fd vokIr ‘kqnk Hkwfe ds
cnys esa nh tkus okyh Hkwfe fodflr vkoklh;
Hkwfe gh gksxh] okf.kfT;d ughaA jkT; ljdkj }kjk
mDr ‘krZ ij iqufoZpkj djds ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS
fd vokIr ‘kqnk Hkwfe pkgs
okf.kfT;d@laLFkkfud ;k vkS|ksfxd iz;kstukFkZ ;k
vU; iz;kstukFkZ vokIr dh xbZ gks rFkk ekLVj
Iyku esa mDr {ks= dk dksbZ Hkh Hkw&mi;ksx
gks] lacaf/kr [kkrsnkj dks ;FkklaHko mlh Hkwfe
Hkwfe esa ls 15 izfr’kr fodflr Hkwfe voklh;
mi;ksx gsrq vkoafVr dh tk ldrh gSA vkoklh;
Hkwfe ds vkoaVu ds i’pkr vkoaVh okf.kfT;d ;k
vU; iz;kstukFkZ Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu@:ikUrj.k
izpfyr fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr
Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu djkus dks Lora= gksxkA”
23. It is, thus, apparent that while partial possession of the land
admeasuring 49 bigha and 10 biswas was taken over on
22.10.1983 leaving 9 Kothadi and 1 Chabutra, and possession was
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
handed over to the JDA, the possession of said 9 Kothadi and 1
Chabutra was taken over on 27.12.2002 when all pending
litigations had been withdrawn by the respondent No.1.
24. We also notice that value of the land admeasuring 19 bigha
and 10 biswas, as acquired, has grown by leaps and bounds and is
being utilized by the JDA itself. In lieu thereto, the concerned land
owners who may be the original khatedars or subsequent
assignees would be entitled to 15% developed land and cannot be
landless and even compensation ought to be paid.
25. As noticed in Indore Development (Supra), the payment of
compensation has to be calculated as per the present rates.
26. We have also noticed the provisions of Sections 54 and 90 of
the Act which reflect that the orders dated 12.05.2003 and
19.05.2003 are the orders passed under Section 19(3) of the JDA
Act and no reference has been made by the JDA to the said orders
till date and the same have attained finality. Keeping them in
abeyance does not cancel the said orders. The action of passing
orders and then keeping them in abeyance is virtually giving
something by one hand and withdrawing it by another. Such
approach is not acceptable in Court of law.
27. With regard to policy dated 13.12.2001 regarding validity of
allotment of 15% developed land is no more res integra, the Apex
Court in Lalaram Vs. Jaipur Development Atuhority and Anr.
(2016) 11 SCC 31 has upheld the said decision of the State. The
JDA is bound by the orders passed by the State Government. The
orders have attained finality by dismissal of the appeal as well as
SLP.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9051-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-658/2010]
28. Independently, we have examined the case of the JDA and
find no force in its submissions. The orders passed by the State
Government cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified and are
strictly in accordance with the policy of the State Government,
moreso, as the enhanced compensation which was awarded in
reference, increasing price of land from Rs.6000/- to Rs.24000/-
per bigha vide order dated 24.03.1990 and not been paid, as is
apparent from the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary,
Department of UDH (supra).
29. Having examined all the aspects, we are satisfied that no
interference is warranted in the present Special Appeal. We uphold
the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge
quashing the order dated 23.06.2009 and further direct the JDA to
immediately take steps for implementing the orders passed by the
State Government dated 12.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 and issue
order of allotment of plot No.7, Airport Plaza, Jaipur admeasuring
9000 square meters to the respondent No.1-writ petitioner.
30. Accordingly, the Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed in view of
above.
31. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
Govind/J Soni/
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:36:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:52:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)