Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt Bholi on 21 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:26996]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11859/2020
URN: CW / 22010U / 2020
1 State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, to the
Government, Department of Water Resources
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2 The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)
3 The Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources,
Jaipur Division-I, Railway Station, Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1 Smt Bholi, W/o Late Shri Bhonri Lal
2 Madho Ram, Son of Late Shri Bhonri Lal
3 Babu Lal, Son of Late Shri Bhonri Lal
4 Smt. Narayani D/o Late Shri Bhonri Lal Wife of Shri Asha
Ram, R/o Sriram Ki Nangal, Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur
5 Prabhu Son of Late Shri Sitaram Meena, Resident of Beed
Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
6 Sonya @ Sohan Lal Son of Late Shri Sitaram Meena,
(Deceased During Pendency Of The Writ Petition)
6.1 Smt. Chandi Devi W/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal,
Resident of Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
6.2 Ramphool S/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal, Resident of
Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6.3 Kailash S/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal, Resident of
Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6.4 Ku. Nangi D/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal, Resident of
Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
7 Smt. Phooli Wife of Late Shri Lalaram Meena, Resident of
Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
8 Kalu Son of Late Shri Lalaram Meena, Resident of Beed
Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
9 Narayan Son of Larte Shri Lalaram Meena, Resident of
Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (2 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
10 Smt. Dugli Wife of Shri Chotya, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
11 Raju Son of Shri Chotya, Resident of Beed Papad, Tehsil
And District Jaipur
12 Kaushalya D/o Shri Chotya, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
13 Smt. Gyarsi Devi W/o Late Shri Chauthya Meena,
Resident of Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
14 Girraj Meena Son of Late Shri Chauthya Meena,
(Deceased During Pendency Of The Writ Petition)
14.1 Smt. Kalli Dvi W/o Late Shri Girraj Meena, R/o Beed
Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
15 Kaluram Meena Son of Late Shri Chauthya Meena,
Resident Of Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
16 Smt. Panchi Wife of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed
Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
17 Mithalal Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
18 Lalaram Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
19 Banwari Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
20 Rakesh Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
21 Ramesh Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
22 Raju Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
23 Kumari Nangi D/o Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed
Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
24 Kumari Komal D/o Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed
Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur
25 Rewad Son of Late Shri Mangle, Resident of Beed Papad,
Tehsil And District Jaipur
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (3 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG
Ms. Mahi Choudhary
Mr. Hardik Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Lokesh Tiwari,
Mr. Nikhil Simlote
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 14.07.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 14.07.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full
part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026
1. This Civil Writ Petition, by and on behalf of petitioner-State
of Rajasthan, has been directed against two orders, the order
dated 14.10.2019, denying to review/recall the order dated
13.07.2017, so also against order dated 13.07.2017, both orders
passed by learned Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jaipur Metro, in Execution Application No.56/2012 titled as ‘Smt.
Bholi & Ors. Versus Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department & Ors.’ Challenge to the impugned orders has been
made by petitioners, invoking jurisdiction of High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby petitioner-
State seeks to question the quantum of compensation and interest
thereupon, payable to respondents-Khatedars in lieu of acquisition
of their land pursuant to award dated 12.08.1983 as amended
vide order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer (for short ‘LAO’) under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act,
1953, now repealed since provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (4 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
1894 have come in effect and operation in Rajasthan w.e.f.
24.09.1984.
2. According to the petitioners, compensation as per calculation
of the original award dated 12.08.1983 has already been paid to
the respondents and in terms of the amended award dated
07.04.2011, due compensation payable to respondents, comes to
the tune of Rs.85,74,725/- with interest as on 28.07.2017
whereas in the order impugned dated 13.07.2017, learned Senior
Civil Judge assessed the due compensation, to the tune of
Rs.3,14,47,142/- along with interest as on 08.08.2017.
Thereafter, petitioners filed application dated 08.08.2017 seeking
to recall/review the order of assessment dated 13.07.2017, but
same has been dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metro
vide order dated 14.10.2019 and after calculating the interest of
one month (08.12.2013 to 07.01.2014), which was inadvertently
left un-calculated and interest of future period upto 02.11.2019,
the payable amount to respondents-khatedars was calculated
Rs.3,46,13,863/-. In the present Writ Petition, both the orders
have been put to challenge by petitioners.
3. When the present writ petition came up on board on
05.10.2021, following order was passed:-
“1. Admit. Issue notice.
2. Ms. Sheetal, learned counsel for the petitioner-
State undertakes that a sum of Rs.85,74,725/- and
interest thereupon, which according to the State is
payable to the respondents shall be paid within two
weeks.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated
06.09.2021 passed by this Court is modified and
stay application is disposed of with a direction that
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (5 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
in case, the petitioners deposit the aforesaid
amount by 31.10.2021, the executing Court shall
not take any coercive measure for enforcement of
the amount, pursuant to orders dated 13.07.2017
and 14.10.2019.
4. In case, the petitioners fail to deposit the above
referred admitted amount by 31.10.2021, the
executing Court shall be free to proceed, in
accordance with law.
5. Stay petition stands disposed of.
6. Needless to observe that the contention of the
rival parties, in relation to the remaining amount
pursuant to impugned order shall be subject to final
outcome and/or any further order to be passed in
the present writ petition. And in case, any
further/additional amount is found payable, it shall
carry interest @ 6% p.a. from 31.10.2021 until the
same is paid.”
4. According to the counsel for petitioners, in the light of the
order dated 05.10.2021, due compensation amount of
Rs.85,74,725/- along with accrued interest thereupon
(Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount + Rs.28,20,569/- interest
amount = Rs.1,13,95,294/- total amount) from 31.10.2021 has
already been deposited by petitioners on 08.11.2021, by way of
bankers cheque dated 03.11.2021 and delay of eight days
occurred in deposition of compensation has also been condoned by
the High Court vide order dated 12.01.2022, therefore, the stay
order, against enforcement of payment of remaining amount of
compensation in terms of order dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019
had come in effect and same is in force until decision of the
present writ petition.
Note:- Admittedly, Execution Petition No.56/2012 for recovery of
remaining amount of compensation as per amended award dated
07.04.2011 is sub judice and pending before the learned Senior
Civil Judge.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (6 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
5. During course of Writ Petition, Application (IA No.2/2021)
dated 01.03.2021 was filed by petitioners to take certain
documents on record, which was allowed vide order dated
06.09.2021 and documents have been taken on record. Then,
respondents filed an another application No.1/2023 dated
12.04.2023 to take documents R/6/1 to R/6/3 on record, which
has also been allowed vide order dated 26.04.2023. Then, from
the side of petitioners, entire compilation of documents for the
sake of brevity was placed on record on 13.03.2026, which has
also been taken on record on the same day.
6. Backdrop of facts, as culled out from record, whereunder
calculation of due compensation under the orders impugned dated
13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019 came to be made, can be
recapitulated, succinctly, as under:-
6.1 Petitioner-State issued notification dated 04.02.1982 under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1953, initiating proceedings to acquire
land ad-measuring 1887 bighas 10 biswas located in Tehsil and
District Jaipur for the public purpose of construction of Mazaar
Dam on Amanishah Ka Nala, Jaipur. The notification dated
04.02.1982 was followed by declaration dated 16.02.1982 under
Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act of 1953 and an award
dated 12.08.1983 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer,
computing the compensation to be awarded for the acquired
lands. The possession of acquired lands was taken by the
petitioner-State from Khatedars on 28.08.1982.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (7 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
6.2 In such acquisition proceedings, land ad-measuring 268
bighas and 15 biswas bearing Khasra Nos.46/53, 46/54, 46/55,
46/56, 46/57, 46/58, 46/59, 46/1, belonging to the respondents-
Khatedars located at Village Beed Papad, Tehsil and District Jaipur
and land ad measuring 68 bighas and 9 biswas, belonging to one
another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram Gurjar located in Village
Kishanbag, Tehsil and District Jaipur were also acquired and in the
one and same award dated 12.08.1983, the compensation of
acquired lands of these khatedars, barani in nature, was
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of
Rs.12,000/- per bigha with solatium at the rate of 10% and
interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The award dated
12.08.1983 was common.
6.3 Another Khatedar – Mr. Ghasi Ram, being dissatisfied with
the quantum of compensation as determined under the award
dated 12.08.1983, requested to make a reference, under Section
18 of the Act of 1953 for re-determination of compensation by the
competent authority. His request was acceded and under
Reference Land Acquisition Case No.47/1984, competent
authority, vide order dated 27.03.1992 revised and re-determined
the compensation of barani lands at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per
bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- per bigha with solatium at the rate of
30% and further interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid
from the date of notification under Section 4 dated 04.02.1982 till
the date of taking possession, with further interest at the rate of
9% per annum for the first year commencing from the date of
taking possession i.e. 28.08.1982 and thereafter, at the rate of
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (8 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
15% per annum till the actual payment of revised compensation is
made. For ready reference, the reasoning and operative portion of
order dated 27.03.1992 is being reproduced hereunder:-
“14& izkFkhZ dh vksj ls 1988 vkj ,y vkj 640 deyknsoh
cuke ch,l,Q tks/kiqj ,vkbZvkj] 1992 lqizhe dksVZ 150 xksdwy
cuke gfj;kuk jkT;] , vkbZ vkj 1980 lqizhe dksVZ] 1870 ,-
xksiky cuke Lis”ky fMIVh lsdszVjh] , vkbZ vkj 1984 lqizhe
dksVZ 774 ,y,vks nsoufxjh cuke] ih- ohjHknzIik] 1984 lqizhe
dksVZ 892 Jherh dkS”kY;k nsoh cuke ,y,vks fofu.kZ; is”k gq,
gSaA bu lkjs fofu.kZ;ksa esa ;g fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd Hkwfe dk
eqvkotk r; djrs le; Hkwfe dh iksVsaf”k;y oSY;w n`f’Vxr
j[kuh pkfg,A blds vykok Hkwfe fdl izdkj dh gS] bldk
orZeku esa D;k mi;ksx gks jgk gS] blds vklikl dkSulh
Hkwfe;ka gSa vkSj vklikl dh Hkwfe dk D;k mi;ksx gks jgk gS rFkk
mldk vokIr”kqnk Hkwfe ij D;k izHkko gS] ;g lc rF; n`f’Vxr
j[kus pkfg,A 1992 lqizhe dksVZ 150 esa ekuuh; mPPkre
U;k;ky; us vokIr”kqnk Hkwfe ftl xkao esa Fkh] ml xkao esa gq,
igys dh vokfIr esa fn, x, eqvkotk ds ckn Hkwfe dh dherksa
esa gqbZ o`f) dks n`f’Vxr j[krs gq, eqvkotk dh jkf”k eas o`f)
dh gSA gekjs ekeys esa Lo;a ,y,vks us vius vokMZ esa ekuk gS
fd Qjojh] 82 dh izpfyr nj dkQh vf/kd gS] ijUrq jkT;
ljdkj ds funsZ’k dh otg ls mUgksaus mDr nj ls eqvkotk ugha
fn;kA mUgkssus ;g Hkh ekuk gS fd mDr Hkwfe fo|k/kj
uxj ;kstuk ds vklikl FkhA tsMh, }kjk izkFkhZ dks fn, x;s
uksfVl fnukad 17-12-83 ls Hkh Li”V gksrk gS fd tsMh, mDr
Hkwfe dks fo|k/kj uxj ;kstuk ds fy, vokIr djuk pkgrh FkhA
bu rF;ksa ls ;g Li”V gS fd vokIr’kqnk Hkwfe vkoklh; ;kstuk
rFkk O;kolkf;d ;kstuk ds fy, mi;qDr gSA Hkwfe esa vokfIr ds
le; ;fn [skrh ugha Hkh gks jgh Fkh rks blls esjs fopkj ls dksbZ
varj ugha iM+rkA D;ksafd catj Hkwfe ij Hkh vkoklh; ;k
O;kolkf;d ;kstuk cu ldrh gS vkSj okLro esa blh mi;ksx
ds fy, ,slh Hkwfe ifj;kstuk cuh gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ ds lk{;ksa ls ;g
Li”V gS fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds pkjksa vksj vkcknh cl pqdh gS
vkSj fo|k/kj uxj ;kstuk tSlh tsMh, dh egRoiw.kZ
vkoklh; ;kstuk gSA fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds ikl ds xzke chM
ljdkjh esa eqvkotk 24 gtkj :- izfr ch?kk dh nj ls fn;k
x;k gS] dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS fd fookxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa
eqvkotk bl nj ls izkFkhZx.k dks u fnyk;k tkosA fook|d dze
1 o 2 blh izdkj r; fd; tkrs gSaA
19& vr% Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds jsQjsal esa bl izdkj vkns”k
fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k vokIr”kqnk Hkwfe dk eqvkotk :-
24000@& izfrch?kk dh nj ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] tks
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (9 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]jkf”k :i;s 16]42]800@& gksrh gSA bl jkf”k ij 30 izfr”kr
dh nj ls vfuok;Z vokfIr ds dkj.k dqy :i;s 4]92]840@&
Hkh izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA blesa ls izkFkhZ }kjk iwoZ
esa izkIr dh xbZ jkf”k :- 903540@& de djus ij “ks’k
jkf”k :i;s 12]32]100@& izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA20& /kkjk 23¼1&,½ Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj vokfIr
ds fy, /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k 4-2-82 ls dCtk ysus
dh rkjh[k 28-8-82 rd cktk: nj ij 12 izfr”kr dh nj ls
dqy jkf”k :- 1]10]068@& :i;s izkFkhZXk.k izkIr djus ds
vf/kdkjh gSA21& /kkjk 34 ds rgr dCtk ysus dh fnukad ls eqvkotk jkf”k
ds Hkqxrku rd izFke o’kZ ds fy, 9 izfr”kr o ckn dh vof/k
ds fy, 15 izfr”kr lkykuk nj ls jkf”k Hkh izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus
ds gdnkj gksaxsA bl jkf”k esa ls dysDVj }kjk fnyokbZ xbZ 4
izfr”kr dh jkf”k lek;kstu ds ckn gh cdk;k jkf”k izkIr djus
ds izkFkhZx.k vf/kdkjh gSaA blds vykok /kkjk 27 ds vuqlkj
jsQjsal dh dksLV Hkh dysDVj }kjk ns; gksxhA fu.kZ;kuqlkj
fMdzh rS;kj gksA”
(underline supplied)
6.4 It is not in dispute that based on the order dated
27.03.1992, passed by the competent authority whereby the
compensation of acquired lands of khatedar- Ghasi Ram was re-
determined, the compensation payable to respondents-Khatedars
for their acquired lands under the same award dated 12.08.1983
also came to be re-determined/revised by the Land Acquisition
Officer vide order dated 07.04.2011, and accordingly original
award came to be amended, on the same terms of the order dated
27.03.1992, in exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the Act of
1894 as amended vide Amendment Act, 1984. Relevant portion of
order dated 07.04.2011 is being reproduced hereunder:-
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (10 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]“/kkjk 28 ¼,½ esa eq[; fopkj.kh; iz’u fuEu gS%&
1- /kkjk 4 dh foKfIr ,d gh fnukad dks ,d gh xtV
uksfVfQds’ku }kjk tkjh gksuh pkfg, ,oa vokMZ ,d gh
fnukad /kkjk 11 ds rgr tkjh gksuk pkfg,A
2- tks [kkrsnkj /kkjk 18 Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds rgr
jsQjsal is’k ugha djrk gS vkSj ftlus is’k fd;k gS mlesa
jkf’k ekU; flfoy tt }kjk c<+kbZ tkrh gS rks og izkFkZuk
i= rhu ekg ds vanj is’k dj c<+h gqbZ jkf’k flfoy tt ds
QSlys ds vuqlkj izkIr dj ldrk gSA izLrqr izdj.k mijksDr
/kkjk 28 ¼,½ ds vuqlkj gS ;k ugha ;g gesa ns[kuk gS\
3- izkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 20-06-1992 dks is’k
fd;k gS ,oa ekU; flfoy tt t;iqj ‘kgj dk QSlyk
fnukad 27-03-1992 o 10-04-1992 dk gSA blfy, izkFkZuk i=
vanj fe;kn izLrqr gS ,oa /kkjk 4 dk uksfVfQds’ku xtV ,d
gh fnukad ,d gh xtV }kjk izdkf’kr gqvk gS ftldk vokMZ
Hkh ,d gh fnukad 12-08-83 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA blfy,
izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZx.k dk mDr ,DV dh /kkjk 28¼,½ ds vuqlkj
eatwj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr le>rs gSA
4- geus mDr izkFkZuk i= ls lacaf/kr vizkFkhZx.k dks uksfVl
tkjh fd;s ftudh rkehy fof/kor~ gksus ij foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k
mifLFkr gq, ,oa ckj ckj ds le; nsus ds i’pkr tokc
jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls is’k gqvk ,oa Jherh fueZyk
ekFkqj] ,MoksdsV us odkyrukek is’k fd;kA geus izkFkhZx.k ds
,MoksdsV Jh izHkkrh yky ‘kekZ }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr cgl dk
v/;;u fd;k ,oa foi{kh dh vksj ls Jherh fueZyk
ekFkqj }kjk ,oa ekSf[kd cgl fnukad 28-03-11 dks lquh
tkdj okLrs fu.kZ; fnukad 07-04-11 fuf’pr dh xbZA geus
izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= o fyf[kr cgl dk v/;;u
euu fd;k rFkk /kkjk 28 , Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu djus ds i’pkr
izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dks eatwj fd;k tkuk
U;k;ksfpr le>rs gSA izkFkhZx.k dk izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 28¼,½ ds
rgr eatwj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZx.k dks viuh Hkwfe dh eqvkotk
jkf’k 12]000@& : izfrch?kk dh nj ds LFkku ij ekU;
flfoy tt t;iqj ds QSlys fnukad 27-03-92 o 10+-04-92
ds vuqlkj 24]000@&: izfrch?kk dh nj ls eqvkotk jkf’k
r; dh tkrh gS D;ksafd /kkjk 28¼,½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k /kkjk
18 jsQjsal dh c<+h gqbZ jkf’k gh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh
gS] ,oa izkFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 23¼1½ ¼,½ ds vuqlkj /kkjk 4 dh
foKfIr tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k rd
dh 12 izfr’kr jkf’k dher ds vykok izkIr djus ds
vf/kdkjh gS ,oa /kkjk 23¼2½ ds vuqlkj lksysfl;e jkf’k 30
izfr’kr ds lkFk gh /kkjk 28 o 34 ds vuqlkj mijksDr jkf’k
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (11 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]dk 1 o”kZ dk C;kt 9 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls ,oa mlds
i’pkr 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls C;kt dh jkf’k viuh
[kkrsnkjh Hkwfe izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr Hkwfe [kljk uacjku
46@53 jdck 4 ch?kk 03 fcLok] 46@54 jdck 2 ch?kk 10
fcLok] 46@55 jdck 4 ch?kk 05 fcLok] 46@56 jdck 2
ch?kk 15 fcLok] 46@57 jdck 0 ch?kk 05 fcLok] 46@58
jdck 18 ch?kk 10 fcLok] 46@59 jdck 2 ch?kk 19 fcLok]
46@1 jdck 233 ch?kk 08 fcLok dqy fdrk 8 jdck 268
ch?kk 15 fcLok okds xzke chM ikiM+ rglhy ,oa ftyk
t;iqj esa fLFkr dh jkf’k mijksDrkuqlkj vius vius fgLls dh
ntZukuqlkj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA”
(emphasis supplied)
6.5 It is further undisputed fact on record that the order of the
Land Acquisition Officer dated 07.04.2011 whereby virtually
original award dated 12.08.1983 for the acquired land of
respondents came to be amended by revising/re-determining the
compensation, which was declared to be payable by petitioner to
respondents-khatedars for their acquired lands, was challenged by
the petitioner-State by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.18557/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Land Acquisition
Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur & Ors.). Respondents-Khatedars had also
preferred a Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11551/2011 (Bhonri Lal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan &
Ors.) seeking implementation of the amended award dated
07.04.2011, to calculate and pay the compensation to them as per
the enhanced and revised rate. Both the Writ Petitions came to be
decided by the High Court vide a common order dated 10.04.2012
and while affirming the order dated 07.04.2011, it was directed by
the High Court that the additional compensation, as determined
vide order dated 07.04.2011, passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer be paid to Khatedars within a period of three months.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (12 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]6.6 It is noteworthy that the order of the High Court passed by
the learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2012 has been affirmed by
the Division Bench as D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ)
No.1257/2012 & 1262/2012 filed thereagainst by the petitioner-
State, have been dismissed on merit vide order dated 19.02.2013
and thereafter, the order of amended award dated 07.04.2011 has
attained finality. For ready reference, relevant portion of order
dated 19.02.2013 reads as under:-
“The submission made is wholly bereft of merit
for the reason that Section 28A of the Act has been
enacted by the legislature only with the intent that
all the khatedars/land owners whose land has been
acquired must be kept at par, which could be notices
by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing Award,
if any order is passed at a later point of time U/s 28A
of the Act benefits have to be granted in the same
manner under the law and once the enhanced
compensation was awarded by the competent
authority vide its order dated 27.03.1992 there
appears no justification to adopt different standards
as regards payment of enhanced compensation
including solatium & interest to other khatedars/land
owners, who too were covered under the same
notification whose land was also acquired and
possession was taken over by the appropriate
government on 28.08.1982 and this what the
learned Single Judge noticed in its order impugned
and rejected the contention advanced by the counsel
for appellant-State.
After hearing counsel for the parties at length &
having gone through the material which came on
record, we are of the view that once enhanced
compensation was awarded to one of the
khatedar/land owner all other similarly situated are
also entitled for the same benefits in terms thereof
U/s 28A of the Act and as regards rate of interest,
the khatedar/owner is entitled to in terms of Sec.34
of the Act and in the instant case, enhanced
compensation has been paid in conformity with the
mandate of law and that does not require any(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (13 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]interference in the instant appeals which have been
filed at the behest of State of Rajasthan.
Consequently, all these appeals are wholly
devoid of merit & accordingly stand dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.7 Thus, it is clear that the compensation for acquired lands of
the respondents is required to be paid by the petitioner-State at
the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- per bigha
along with solatium at the rate of 30% thereupon and interest on
the compensation amount, as per amended award/ order dated
07.04.2011, in the same terms as has been calculated and paid by
petitioner-State to another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram for his acquired
land in terms of the order dated 27.03.1992, pursuant to the one
and same common award dated 12.08.1983.
6.8 It appears that one execution application by legal heirs of
khatedar-Mr. Ghasi Ram (deceased), namely Nathu was filed,
which was registered on No.55/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge
and therein, compensation as per the enhanced rate was
calculated as also has been paid by the petitioners-State. This fact
stands fortified by the orders of calculation of award as per
enhanced rate and the information provided under Right to
Information Act to respondents. The relimit orders, proceedings of
execution and information divulged under RT Act are available on
record.
6.9 It appears that an another Execution Application was filed by
the respondents against the petitioner-State for awarding the
additional compensation at the revised rate in terms of the order
dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (14 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
was affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 10.04.2012. The
execution application of respondents, was registered on No.
56/2012, titled ‘Smt. Bholi & Ors. Versus Additional Chief
Engineer, Irrigation Department & Ors.’ wherein due compensation
was calculated by Senior Civil Judge and after adjustment of
compensation amount, already paid to respondents, an order to
attach the properties of the petitioner-State came to be passed on
09.07.2013, in order to realise the unpaid amount of enhanced
compensation along with solatium and interest. Feeling aggrieved
against the order of attachment dated 09.07.2013, petitioner-
State preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13370/2013 (State of
Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Smt. Bholi & Ors.), before the High Court.
This writ petition came to be disposed of by the High Court, vide
order dated 18.05.2017 with the consent of the counsel for both
the parties, and the order of attachment dated 09.07.2013, was
set aside and issue of calculation of the compensation and interest
thereupon, payable to the respondents-Khatedars for their
acquired lands, was remanded back to the learned Civil Court for
recalculation afresh within a period of six weeks after hearing both
parties.
6.10 In furtherance to the remand order of the High Court
dated 18.05.2017, petitioner submitted calculation chart dated
04.07.2017 before the Civil Court, wherein calculation of the due
compensation with interest up to 28.07.2017 was made to the
tune of Rs.85,74,725/- (Annexure-2). Respondents-Khatedars also
submitted their calculation of due compensation along with
interest up to the date i.e. 08.08.2017 (Annexure-3) for
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (15 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
Rs.4,59,87,589/-. Learned Civil Court, having pondered over the
calculations of due compensation, respectively submitted from
both sides differently, followed the criteria of calculation as
adopted by State Government itself, while calculating and
awarding the due compensation amount to other khatedars in
terms of order of reference dated 27.03.1992 pursuant to the
same award dated 12.08.1983 and accordingly by applying same
method and formula, due compensation payable to respondents-
khatedars has been computed by the Civil Court to the tune of
Rs.3,14,47,142/- vide order dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure-5).
Thereafter, petitioner-State filed an application dated 08.08.2017
(Annexure-6), seeking to recall/review the calculation of
compensation made under order dated 13.07.2017. Respondents-
khatedars too, after accepting the calculation made under order
dated 13.07.2017, filed a belated application dated 01.03.2019 for
recalling the order. Learned Senior Civil Judge after hearing both
parties, dismissed both the applications, vide order dated
14.10.2019 and since it came to notice that interest of one month
(08.12.2013 to 07.01.2014) could not be calculated by calculating
the due interest and additional accrued interest up to 02.11.2019,
calculated the due amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.3,46,13,863/- (Annexure-7). Hence, challenging the calculation
of due compensation as per amended award / order dated
07.04.2011, both the orders dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019,
by the Senior Civil Judge, petitioner-State has filed the present
Writ Petition before this Court.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (16 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
7. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Basant Singh
Chhaba, put in appearance for and on behalf of petitioners-State
and submitted a brief note of written submissions on 16.07.2026
and pointed out that the complete compilation of documents has
already been placed on record from his side on 13.03.2026 which
has been taken on record. His submission is that as per the
computation of compensation, respondents are not entitled to get
any more amount of compensation because whatever was the due
compensation, payable to respondents as per calculation chart
(Annexure-1), has already been paid by petitioners on 08.11.2021
in compliance of the interim order dated 05.10.2021, hence,
nothing more is required to be paid. His prayer is that after
adjustment of the already paid amount to respondents, impugned
orders be quashed and set aside. During course of verbal
arguments on 14.07.2026 as well, from the side of petitioner, the
compilation of documents submitted by them on 13.03.2026 were
pressed and arguments were made that incorrect calculation was
made by the Civil Court in the impugned orders which needs to be
corrected.
8. The contention of petitioners-State is that learned Civil Court
fell in grave error, while calculating the due amount of
compensation payable to respondents as calculated in orders
impugned.
8.1 According to the petitioners, the amount of compensation to
respondents at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per bigha along with
solatium of 10% and interest at the rate of 4% thereupon in terms
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (17 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
of the original award dated 12.08.1983 had already been paid,
therefore, calculation for the rest amount of compensation as per
the revised rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/-
per bigha along with solatium of 30% and interest thereupon in
terms of the amended award dated 07.04.2011 ought to have
been made, confined to the differential amount of compensation
i.e. Rs.24,000/- per bigha minus Rs.12,000/- per bigha at the rate
of Rs.12,000/- per bigha only. Their contention is that the amount
of compensation under the original award, paid to the
respondents, could not be deduced against the interest, after
calculating the compensation afresh in terms of the amended
award dated 07.04.2011. Their contention is that interest, on the
already calculated amount of interest may not be calculated and
allowed to be paid, therefore, the calculation as made by the
petitioners in the chart (Annexure-2), for the differential amount
of compensation, only amount of Rs.85,74,725/- is required to be
paid to the respondents in terms of the order/amended award
dated 07.04.2011. According to them, the calculation chart
(Annexure-2), is only the correct calculation and same should
have been accepted by the Civil Court. According to such
calculation, the only payable amount of enhanced compensation in
terms of amended award/ order dated 07.04.2011 to the
respondents come to the tune of Rs.85,74,725/- by calculating
interest thereupon upto the date of 28.07.2017. According to this
calculation, payment of compensation to respondents along with
interest upto the date of 31.10.2021, amounting to
Rs.1,13,95,294/- (Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount +
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (18 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
Rs.28,20,569/- interest amount) has already been paid. This
payment has been paid in furtherance to the interim order dated
05.10.2021, passed in this writ petition and now, no more amount
of compensation, as calculated under the orders impugned dated
13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019, is liable to be paid to respondents,
therefore, impugned orders deserve to be set aside to this extent.
In the written submissions, previously submitted by and on
behalf of the petitioners, which are available on record, reliance
has been placed on the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurpreet Singh Versus Union
of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court affirmed the “stagewise rule of appropriation” as laid down
by the Supreme Court in previous case of Prem Nath Kapur Vs.
National Fertilizers Corpn. of India ltd. [(1996) 2 SCC 71]
and held in Para No.53 as under:-
“53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the
essential ratio in Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation
being at different stages is justified though if at a
particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-
decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the
same on the general principle of appropriation, first
towards interest, then towards costs and then
towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is
indicated to be towards specified heads by the
judgment-debtor while making the deposit intimating
the decree-holder of his intention. We, thus, approve
the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of
appropriation.”
8.2 The further contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the
doctrine of merger does not apply, when the compensation of
acquired land, is enhanced by the Reference Court or by the High
Court or by the Supreme Court at the level of next award stage,
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (19 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
that too, after receipt of entire compensation with interest by the
awardee under the original award.
8.3 According to the petitioners, respondents are not entitled to
reopen the entire transaction of compensation and after making
calculation of the compensation afresh at the rate of Rs.24,000/-
per bigha along with 30% solatium and interest thereupon payable
in terms of amended award dated 07.04.2011, then, to deduce
the received amount of compensation under the original award
against the interest.
8.4 Thus, the contention of the petitioners is that the Civil Court
grossly erred in calculating the due compensation under the order
dated 13.07.2017 to the tune of Rs.3,14,47,182/- calculating the
interest upto 08.08.2017 and rejecting the calculation of due
compensation, as made by the petitioners to the tune of
Rs.85,74,725/-. Further, while denying to review/recall the order
dated 13.07.2017, calculating again the due compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,46,13,863/- with interest upto the date of
02.11.2019 under the order impugned dated 14.10.2019.
8.5 Hence, prayer of petitioners is that the impugned orders are
not sustainable to the extent of calculating the compensation over
and above to the principal amount of due compensation of
Rs.85,74,725/- as made by the petitioners in the calculation chart
(Annexure-2).
9.1 Per contra, on behalf of the respondents-Khatedars,
submission has been made that respondents may not be
discriminated by the petitioners-State, in respect of calculation
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (20 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
and payment of due compensation for their acquired land. Their
submission is that the land of Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, who is
deceased and survived by natural heirs Nathu, Hanuman and
others, situated in Village Kishanbag, Tehsil and District Jaipur,
was also acquired by the petitioner-State under the same award
dated 12.08.1983, whereunder the lands of respondents situated
at Village Beed Papad, Tehsil and District Jaipur, was acquired and
for the barani nature of acquired land, compensation was
determined at the same rate i.e Rs.12,000/- per bigha along with
solatium of 10% and 4% interest thereupon. Later on, the
compensation under award dated 12.08.1983, in respect of
acquired lands of Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, was enhanced and re-
determined by the competent authority under Reference
Acquisition Case No.47/1984 vide order dated 27.03.1992 at the
rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha along with solatium of 30% and
further, interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid from the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 till the date
of taking possession with further interest at the rate of 9% per
annum for the first year commencing from the date of taking
possession and then 15% for the remaining period until making
the actual payment of due compensation. The compensation
payable to Khatedar – Ghasi Ram under the original award dated
12.08.1983 had also been paid, but thereafter, when the
compensation was enhanced under the order dated 27.03.1992,
the recalculation of the compensation was made in the execution
application No.55/2012 and the recalculated amount of
compensation has been paid by the petitioner-State to Nathu,
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (21 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
Hanuman and others, who are legal heirs of Late Ghasi Ram,
pursuant to the orders dated 24.01.2017 and 07.01.2023 passed
in Execution Application No.55/2012. Therefore, on the principle of
parity and equality, the respondents, who are awardees under the
same award dated 12.08.1983 and the compensation payable to
them has also been redetermined by the competent authority vide
order dated 07.04.2011 at par with another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram
and same has been affirmed finally upto the Hon’ble Division
Bench of the High Court, hence, the petitioner-State may not
apply a different method or formula to calculate the due
compensation to the respondents.
9.2 Their submission is that the petitioner-State is under a legal
obligation and bound to pay the compensation at the equal rate
and as per similar method of calculation i.e. respondents-
khatedars and legal heirs of another khatedar Mr. Ghasi Ram,
whose lands were acquired under the same notification and to
both the awardees, under the common award dated 12.08.1983,
compensation was enhanced at the similar rate for their similar
nature of acquired lands, hence, the calculation of balance amount
of unpaid compensation as made by the Civil Court in the orders
dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019, impugned herein, do not call
for any interference by the High Court in its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9.3 Their further submission is that the amount of compensation,
which was paid by the petitioner-State and received by the
respondents, under the original award dated 12.08.1983 has
rightly been deduced by the Civil Court while computing the
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (22 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
compensation under the amended award dated 07.04.2011
afresh, against the interest, as same was done by the State
Government in case of Khatedar-Ghasi Ram. Hence, the impugned
orders on the principle of ‘equity and parity’ do not suffer from
any infirmity or manifest illegality or jurisdictional error,
warranting interference therein by the High Court in its writ
jurisdiction.
9.4 Their submission is that in the calculation as, made by the
Civil Court, nowhere interest upon interest has been calculated,
rather the compensation has rightly been calculated in terms of
the amended award dated 07.04.2011, which was passed based
on the order dated 27.03.1992 passed in Reference Case
No.47/1984 in respect of Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, to whom
compensation has already been paid by the petitioner-State, as
per the similar method of calculation of enhanced compensation.
9.5 Therefore, according to the respondents, writ petition
deserves to be dismissed and the petitioners be directed to pay
the balance amount of compensation along with interest to the
respondents-Khatedars forthwith.
10. It has not been disputed from the side of the respondents
that out of the determined compensation under the orders
impugned, amount of Rs.1,13,95,294/- has been paid by the
petitioner-State in furtherance to the interim stay order dated
05.10.2021 and now, differential amount is required to be paid by
the petitioner-State to respondents along with interest at the rate
of 10% per annum w.e.f. 31.10.2021 onwards in terms of the
interim order dated 05.10.2021.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (23 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
11. Heard and considered.
12. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that under the common
award dated 12.08.1983, 268 Bighas 15 Biswa lands of
respondents-khatedars located at Village Beed Papad and 68
Bighas and 9 Biswa land of one another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram
(Now deceased and represented through his legal heirs Nathu,
Hanuman and others) situated at Village Kishangarh Bagh, in the
Tehsil and District Jaipur, were acquired by the petitioners-State
and for the similar nature of Barani land, compensation was
determined at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per bigha with solatium at
the rate of 10% and interest at the rate of 4% thereupon. Later
on, the compensation of acquired land of Khatedar-Ghasi Ram was
re-determined by the competent authority at the rate of
Rs.24,000/- per bigha with 30% solatium and interest at the rate
of 12% as per scheme of Act, 1894 under Reference Land
Acquisition Case No. 47/1984 vide order dated 27.03.1992 and
based on this order, compensation payable to respondents-
Khatedars for their acquired land was also revised/re-determined
by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 07.04.2011
passed in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 28A of
the Act of 1984 (as amended), as such original award came to be
amended vide order dated 07.04.2011.
13. It is not in dispute that the order dated 07.04.2011, has
attained finality and petitioners-State is required to pay
compensation to the respondents-Khatedars for their acquired 268
Bighas 15 Biswa land in terms thereof i.e. at the rate of Rs.
24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha and 30%
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (24 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
solatium thereupon instead of 10% as per Section 23(2) of the Act
of 1984 and future interest at the rate of 12% from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act, till the date of taking
possession as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, with future interest
at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking
possession and then, at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period
as per Section 34 of the Act of 1894, instead of a general rate of
interest at the rate of 4%, as awarded under the original award
dated 12.08.1983.
14. Thereafter, order dated 07.04.2011 has also been affirmed
by learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.04.2012 and
directions were issued to implement the same within three
months.
15. Then, order dated 10.04.2012 has been affirmed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 19.02.2013.
16. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court, while
dismissing the Special Appeals, filed by the State, and affirming
the order of learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2012, has clearly
held and observed in its order dated 19.02.2013 (supra) that
“there appears no justification to adopt different standards as
regards payment of enhanced compensation including solatium &
interest to other khatedars/land owners, who too were covered
under the same notification whose land was also acquired and
possession was taken over by the appropriate government on
28.08.1982 and this what the learned Single Judge noticed in its
order impugned and rejected the contention advanced by the
counsel for appellant-State.” The Division Bench further clearly
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (25 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
held that, “we are of the view that once enhanced compensation
was awarded to one of the khatedar/land owner all other similarly
situated are also entitled for the same benefits in terms thereof U/
s 28A of the Act and as regards rate of interest, the
khatedar/owner is entitled to in terms of Sec.34 of the Act”.
17. It is noteworthy that compensation at the enhanced rate as
per order dated 27.03.1992 for khatedar-Mr. Ghasi Ram was
calculated afresh in the execution application No.55/2012 and
amount of compensation paid to him under the original award
dated 12.08.1983 was deduced against the interest amount and
then the calculated amount of compensation has been denied to
be paid by the State authorities.
Thus, the factual position, which has emerged, has not been
and cannot be disputed that the compensation for acquired lands
of the respondents is required to be paid by the petitioner-State at
the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- per bigha
along with solatium at the rate of 30% thereupon and interest as
per Section 23 (1-A), (2) and Section 34 of the Act, as per
amended award/ order dated 07.04.2011 and due compensation
to the respondents by the petitioners-State should be calculated
as per the same method and in the same terms as has been
calculated and paid by petitioner-State to legal heirs of deceased
Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, for their acquired land, in terms of the
order dated 27.03.1992, pursuant to the one and common award
dated 12.08.1983.
18. From the side of petitioners, a copy of order dated
24.01.2017 (Annexure-16) was placed on record along with
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (26 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
application (2/2021) dated 19.08.2021, which has been taken on
record vide order dated 06.09.2021. A perusal of this order dated
24.01.2017 reveals that same was passed by the Civil Court in
Execution No.19/2015 in case of Nathuram Gurjar Vs. Secretary,
Department of Water Resources and Ors. In this order, calculation
of compensation was made as payable to Nathuram Gurjar, who
happens to be son of Khatedar- Ghasi Ram Gurjar, whose 68.9
Bigha land of Khasra No.27 & 28 located at Village Kishangarh
Bagh, Tehsil and District Jaipur was acquired under the same
award dated 12.08.1983. A perusal of the order further reveals
that under the award dated 12.08.1983, compensation for the
acquired lands of khatedar-Ghasi Ram was ordered to be paid at
the rate of Rs.12,000/- per bigha, but same was later on revised
and re-determined at the rate Rs.24,000/- per bigha, then further
at the rate of Rs. 29,400/- per bigha and 50,000/- per bigha. The
compensation determined under the award dated 12.08.1983 had
been paid by the State Government and received by the Khatedars
prior thereto.
19. It appears that in case of Nathu Ram as well, from the side
of State-Department, similar stand was taken, as has been taken
in the present case, for calculation of the compensation as per the
amended award dated 07.04.2011, but while calculating the
compensation as per enhanced/revised rate, in furtherance to the
order of competent authority dated 27.03.1992, compensation
already paid by the petitioner-State under the original award
dated 12.08.1983 was deduced against the interest, while
determining the compensation afresh as per the enhanced rate
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (27 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
along with solatium of 30% and interest payable thereupon under
the provisions of Section 23(1A), 2 and Section 34 of the Act of
1894.
20. It would be apropos to reproduce the relevant portion of the
order dated 24.01.2017 hereunder for ready reference, which
would obviously throw light on the issue involved herein in this
writ petition:-
“mijksDr nksuksa x.kuk pkVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] lkFk gh is’k
fd;s x;s nLrkostkr ,oa fyf[kr cgl dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k
esa fu”d”kZ :i ls ns[kk tkosa rks dqN fcUnq bl izdkj ds gS] ftu ij i{kdkjksa
ds e/; fookn ugha gS] tSls fd
1- dqy 68 ch?kk 9 fcLok Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa vokMZ tkjh gksuk
2- 50]000@& :i;s dh nj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk
3- vokMZ dh fnukad 12-08-1983
mDr fcUnq bl izdkj ds gS] ftuesa i{kdkjksa ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk
fookn ugha gSA izdj.k esa x.kuk ds fcUnq ij eq[; :i ls fookn izdV gqvk
gS] mlh ds vuqdze esa izkFkhZ ukFkqjke dh vksj ls is’k fd;s x;s x.kuk pkVZ dk
voyksdu djus ds i’pkr~ tgka rd izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is’k fd;s x;s
x.kuk pkVZ dk iz’u gS] mfpr izrhr gksrk gS] tks fd fuEu izdkj ls gS% &1- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 12-09-2011 ls la’kksf/kr nj :i;s
50]000 :i;s izfr ch?kk ls 68 ch?kk 9 fcLok dh jde
34]22]500-00 :i;s
2- mDr jde ij fnukad 04-02-1982 ls fnukad 28-08-1982 rd 12 izfr’kr
okf”kZd nj ls 206 fnu ds C;kt dh jkf’k&
2]31]790-00 :i;s
3- mDr jde ij 30 izfr’kr dh nj ls lksysf’k;e jkf’k
10]26]750-00 :i;s
dqy eqvkotk jkf’k dk ;ksx 46]81]042-00 :i;s
4- mDr jde ij 1 o”kZ fnukad 28-08-1982 ls fnukad 27-08-1983 rd 9
izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls C;kt 4]21]293-00 :i;s
5- fnukad 28-08-1983 ls 5-10-1985 rd 2 o”kZ 1 ekg 8 fnu dk C;kt 15
izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls 14]77]413-00 :i;s
6- fnukad 05-10-1985 dks 12000@& :i;s izfr ch?kk dh nj ls foHkkx }kjk
fd;s x;s Hkqxrku dks C;kt esa ls lek;ksftr
14]77]413-00&10]15]133-00=4]62]280-00 :i;s
‘ks”k jde 55]64]615-00 :i;s
7- fnukad 06-10-1985 ls 31-12-1993 rd 8 o”kZ 85 fnu dk C;kt 15 izfr’kr
okf”kZd nj ls 68]71]918-00 :i;s
8- vizkFkhZ flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk fnukad 18-12-1993 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jde dks
izFker% C;kt esa ls lek;sktu
68]71]918-00&44]35]000-00=24]36]918-00 :i;s
‘ks”k jde 80]01]533-00 :i;s
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (28 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]9- fnukad 01-01-1994 ls 25-11-1994 rd vFkkZr 329 fnu dk C;kt 15
izfr’kr nj ls
10]88]851-00 :i;s
10- vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk fnukad 25-11-1994 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jde dk C;kt
esa lek;kstu
10]88]851-00&40]98]31-00=6]79]020-00 :i;s
‘ks”k jde 86]80]553-00 :i;s
11- fnukad 25-11-1994 ls 20-07-2003 dk C;kt 8 o”kZ 4 ekg 6 fnu dk 15
izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls C;kt
1]08]64]515-00 :i;s
12- vizkFkhZx.k foHkkx }kjk fnukad 21-07-2003 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k dk
C;kt esa lek;kstu
108]64]515-00&37]97]064-00=70]67]451-00 :i;s
‘ks”k jde 1]57]41]004-00 :i;s
13- fnukad 21-07-2003 ls 12-02-2004 rd 8 ekg dk C;kt 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd
nj ls
15]52]537-00 :i;s
14- vizkFkhZx.k foHkkx }kjk fnukad 12-02-2004 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k dk
C;kt esa lek;kstu
15]52]537-00&3]29]739-00=12]22]798-00 :i;s
‘ks”k jde 1]69]63]802-00 :i;s
15- fnukad 12-02-2004 ls fnukad 03-09-2012 rd 15 izfr’kr dh nj ls C;kt
21]840]680-00 :i;s
16- vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk fnukad 03-09-2012 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k dk C;kt
esa lek;kstu
21]840]680-00&80]83]544-00=1]37]57]136-00:i;s
‘ks”k jde 3]07]23]908-00 :i;s
17- fnukad 04-09-2012 ls lEHkkfor Hkqxrku frfFk 15-01-2017 rd 4 o”kZ 4
ekg 11 fnu dk 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls C;kt
20]10]94]27-00 :i;s
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
dqy ns; jkf’k 5]08]33]335-00
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
fnukad 15-01-2017 ds i’pkr~ izfrfnu dk C;kt 12]626@&:i;s
vizkFkhZ flapkbZ foHkkx dh vksj ls le;≤ ij tks jkf’k muds }kjk
tek djkuk izdV fd;k x;k] og fuEukuqlkj gS&¼v½ pSd la[;k 627255 fnukad 28-09-1985 }kjk 1015133@&:i;s
12000@& :i;s izfr ch?kk dh nj ls fd;k x;k Hkqxrku
¼c½ pSd la[;k 522627 fnukad 18-12-1993 4435000@&:i;s
pSd la[;k 934560 fnukad 25-11-1994 409831@&:i;s
¼l½ pSd la[;k 870345 fnukad 21-07-2003 3797064@&:i;s
pSd la[;k 877324 fnukad 12-02-2004 329739@&:i;s
¼n½ fnukad 03-09-2012 dks fd;k x;k Hkqxrku 8083544@&:i;s
fnukad 03-09-2012 rd dqy Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k 18070311@&:i;smDr Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls Lohdkj fd;k
x;k gS vkSj izdV fd;k x;k gS fd mijksDr jkf’k vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk tek
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (29 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]djk;h x;h Fkh] fdUrq eq[; fookn mDr jkf’k ds lek;kstu ds lEcU/k esa gS
fd mDr jkf’k loZizFke C;kt dh jkf’k esa ls lek;ksftr gksxh ;k ewy jkf’k esa
ls] blds lEcU/k esa Hkh fu”d”kZ :i ls ns[kk tkosa rks Lo;a foHkkx us dbZ LFkkuksa
ij bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tks x.kuk dh xbZ gS og mfpr gS vkSj
lek;kstu loZizFke C;kt dh jkf’k esa ls gh gksxk] blds lEcU/k esa tSlk fd
iwoZ esa blh U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 28-07-2016 dks fd;s x;s vkns’k esa mYys[k
fd;k x;k gS fd&
tgka rd tks dSydqys’ku] vkns’k fnukad 03-10-2015 esa dh xbZ gS] og
C;kt ij C;kt tksM+rs gq, dh xbZ gS vkSj xyr :i ls dh xbZ gSA bl lEcU/
k esa Hkh ns[kk tkosa rks Lo;a jktLFkku ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds i=
dzekad ,Q¼24½@,,l@vkbZ@lSy@10@3100 fnukad 01-10-2012 esa ;g
Li”V :i ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd
^^vc d`”kd }kjk eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] flfoy
U;k;k/kh’k] t;iqj ls btjk; izkFkZuk i= 53@2012 dh
x.kuk ‘khV esa C;kt dh x.kuk izfro”kZ ¼C;kt ij
C;kt½ ds vk/kkj ij ugha dh xbZ gSA blesa Hkqxrku dh
xbZ frfFk dks cdk;k C;kt dks ewy jkf’k esa lfEefyr
djrs gq, C;kt dk vkadyu dj izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
bl btjk; izkFkZuk i= esa fnukad 30-03-12 rd dh
x.kuk dj 37548682@&:i;s ,oa 6900@&:i;s
izfrfnu C;kt ds Hkqxrku pkgk gSA bl vk/kkj ij is’kh
fnukad 28-09-12 rd dk 182 fnol dk C;kt :i;s
1255800@&tksMus ij dqy jkf’k 38804482@& :i;s
dk Hkqxrku pkgk gSA vr% iz’uxr izdj.k esa fnu
izfrfnu yxus okys C;kt ls jkT;i{k dk cpko djrs
gq, ,oa dqdhZ okjUV dk bUrtkj ugha djds mDr jkf’k
ek- U;k;ky; esa tek djus gsrq ctV en
8674&101&¼01½ vafdr dj vfoyEc x.kuk LVsVesUV
e; pSdfyLV rS;kj dj Hksts foyEc dh fLFkfr esa
lEcfU/kr dk Li”Vhdj.k izkIr dj viuh Li”V
vfHk’ka”kk lfgr fHktok;sA **
bl izdkj Lo;a jktLFkku ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx dh vksj ls
mDr i= esa Li”V :i ls ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd C;kt dh x.kuk
C;kt ij C;kt ds vk/kkj ij ugha dh xbZ vkSj jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk
mfpr gSA
bl izdj Lo;a jktLFkku ljdkj] ftyk lalk/ku foHkkx }kjk gh bl
rF; dks Li”V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd x.kuk mfpr gSA blds
mijkUr Hkh izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is’k fd;s x;s nLrkostkr dk voyksdu
fd;k tkosa rks ,usDpj&4 tks fd foRr foHkkx dh fVIi.kh gS vkSj lgk;d
ys[kkf/kdkjh foRr }kjk nh xbZ fVIi.kh ds vuqlkj
^^foHkkx ds lgk;d fof/k ijke’khZ o eq[; fof/k ijke’khZ
us vuqPNsn 433&434@,u ij viuh jk; nh gS muds
vuqlkj fof/k ds lkekU; fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj&^^C;kt ij
C;kt ns; ugha gksrk gS fdUrq fdlh _.kh }kjk Li”V
izko/kku ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkqxrku ds le; ;g
Li”V djuk gksrk gs fd fn;k tk jgk Hkqxrku izFker%
ewy esa ls dkVk tkuk gS vFkok C;kt esa lsA ;fn _.kh
us ,slk Li”V mYys[k Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa ugha fd;k gS
rks lkekU;r% Hkqxrku dh jkf’k izFker% C;kt esa
lek;ksftr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj bUgha fl)kUrksa ds(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (30 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]vk/kkj ij bl ekeysa esa ys[k gS fd foHkkx us tc tc Hkh
Hkqxrku fd;k gS ;g dk’rdkjksa dks voxr ugha djk;k gS
fd veqd jkf’k C;kt isVs ugha gksdj ewy/ku ds isVs fd;k
tk jgk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa :i;s 40]89]928@&dh
x.kuk lgh izrhr gksrh gSA**
fof/k foHkkx us vuqPNsn 438&442@,u ij viuh jk; nh
gSA vuqPNsn 440@,u ij fof/k foHkkx us 434@,u dh
foHkkxh; DLR dh jk; ls lger gksrs gq, mYysf[kr
fd;k gS fd mPpre U;k;ky; ds ,d fu.kZ; esa ;g
O;oLFkk nh xbZ fd ;fn igys ls gh ;g Li”V ugha fd;k
x;k gS fd jkf’k fdlh isVs tek dh tk jgh gS rks og
igys C;kt esa lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA vkxs vuqPNsn
441@,u ij mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd – On the basis of
law propounded by S.C. in AIR 1970 SC 161 Meghraj
Vs. Bajabai I have no option but to agree with the
opinion of ALR and DLR. Now this is for the AD to take
an appropriate decision.
bl izdkj Lo;a foRr foHkkx dh mijksDr fVIi.kh] ftlesa dh ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ds
vuqlkj ;fn ;g Li”V ugha fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkqxrku ds le; mDr jfk’k
fdl isVs lek;ksftr gksxh rks og loZizFke C;kt esa ls gh lek;ksftr gksrh
gSA izLrqr ekeysa esa ,slk dgha izdV ugha gksrk gS fd bl izdkj ds dksbZ
funsZ’k dk’rdkjksa dks fn;s x;s gksaA bl dkj.k og igys C;kt esa gh
lek;ksftr gksxh] bl rF; dks ekuk x;k gS vkSj blh fVIi.kh esa vkxs ;g
Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd
^^mDr izLrkoksa esa vc foHkkx }kjk C;kt ij C;kt rks
ugha fn;k x;k gS] ijUrq fof/k foHkkx dh jk; ds
vuqlkj ljdkj }kjk tek djkbZ xbZ jkf’k dks loZizFke
C;kt esa lek;kstu fd;k gS rFkk ckn esa ewy/ku esa
lek;ksftr fd;k gSA
U;k;ky; ds dqdhZ vkns’k dh ikyuk esa mDr
jkf’k dh Hkqxrku lgefr nsrs gq, i=koyh foRr
¼ctV½ foHkkx dks fMdzhVy en esa vfrfjDr Lohd`fr
gsrq Hkstk tkuk mfpr gksxkA**
vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk dqdhZ vkns’k esa nh xbZ jkf’k dks mfpr ekurs
gq, Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa Lohd`fr gsrq Hkh jk; nh xbZ FkhA
bl izdkj izdj.k esa is’k dh xbZ x.kukvksa ds lEcU/k esa fu”d”kZ :i
ls ns[kk tkosa rks izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is’k dh xbZ x.kuk pkVZ mfpr
gS] D;ksafd bl lEcU/k esa Lo;a foRr foHkkx ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds ifji=ksa
ds vuqlkj Hkh bls mfpr ekuk x;k gSA vuko’;d :i ls iwoZ esa r;
fcunqvksa ij Hkh ckj&ckj fookn mRiUUk fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj mijksDr ds
vuqdze esa x.kuk is’k dh xbZ gS] tks mfpr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA ,slh
fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is’k dh xbZ x.kuk pkVZ ds vuqlj
izkFkhZ ukFkwjke Hkqxrku izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA ”
(emphasis supplied)
21. It has been pointed out by the counsel for respondents, on
the strength of documents, Annexure-6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 placed on
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (31 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
record that in execution proceedings in Execution Petition
No.55/2012 (19/2015) for recovery of unpaid amount of
compensation in terms of order dated 24.01.2017, entire amount
has been paid by the State Government to legal heirs of khatedar-
Ghasi Ram, after taking decision at departmental level that it
would be proper to make payment of compensation as determined
by the Civil Court as per enhanced rate/amended award, after
adjustment of the amount already paid by the State Government
under the original award dated 12.08.1983 against the accured
interest. The factum of payment of entire enhanced compensation
made by State to the legal heirs of khatedar- Ghasi Ram, has not
been denied from the side of petitioners as well.
22. Here, at this juncture, it is noteworthy and clear from the
record that in the present matter as well, in respect of making
payment of the enhanced compensation as determined by the Civil
Courts under order dated 14.10.2019 in Execution Petition
No.56/2012 a decision was taken by the State Government for
making payment accordingly, which transpires from the letter
dated 06.07.2021 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of
Rajasthan and further financial approval for the entire unpaid
amount as calculated in the order dated 14.10.2019 by the Civil
Court, was also granted, but thereafter due to passing the interim
order dated 05.10.2021, only an amount of Rs. 1,13,95,294/-
(Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount + Rs.28,20,569/- interest
amount) has been deposited by the State Government and
differential amount due as per order dated 14.10.2019 despite
grant of financial solatium, same has not been deposited. In terms
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (32 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
of the order dated 05.10.2021 (supra), same carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum. For ready reference, letter dated
06.07.2021 is being reproduced hereunder:-
jktLFkku ljdkj
ty lalk/ku foHkkx jkT; ty lalk/ku vk;kstuk]
bfUnjk xka/kh ugj ,oa lh-,-Mh- foHkkxfo”k;%& etkj ck¡/k gsrq vokIr dh xbZ Hkqfe ds eqvkotk jkf’k Hkqxrku ds
lEca/k esa nk;j btjk; la[;k 56@2012 Jhefr HkkSyh ifRu Lo- HkkSjhyky
o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-10-2019Aiz’kklfud fu.kZ; fnukad 07-05-1992 dh vuqikyuk esa vekuh’kkg
ukys ij fLFkr etkj ck¡/k dh Hkjko {kerk ¼,Q-Vh-,y½ ds Mwcs esa vkus
okyh Hkwfe ¼275 ch?kk 3 fcLok½ dks NksM+dj ‘ks”k Hkwfe ¼1145 ch?kk 5 fcLok½
dk dCtk QnZ Hkwfe fnukad 08-06-1992 dks t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj
dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;k FkkA dCtk QnZ Hkwfe nLrkost esa ;g Li”V vadu
fd;k x;k gS fd] ^^vc Hkwfe ds gLrkUrfjr fnukad ls Hkwfe dk leLr
LokfeRo t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj dk gksxk ,oa izkf/kdj.k ds i=
Øekad tfoizk@ful@tksu@6@92@2529 fnukad 07-05-1992 ds vuqlkj
t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj flapkbZ foHkkx dks mudh Hkwfe ds pqdk;s
x;s@pqdkbZ tkus okyh jkf’k o ml ij ns; C;kt dk Hkqxrku djsxkA^^
etkj ck¡/k gsrq vokIr dh xbZ Hkqfe ds eqvkotk jkf’k Hkqxrku ds
lEca/k esa nk;j btjk; la[;k 56@2012 Jhefr HkkSyh ifRu Lo- HkkSjhyky
o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ofj”B flfoy
U;k;k/kh’k t;iqj egkuxj t;iqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-10-2019 ls
izkFkhZ dks jkf’k :- 34613863@& dk Hkqxrku djus ds funsZ’k fn;s x;s gSaA
vr% btjk; la[;k 56@2012 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s
mDr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-10-2019 dh ikyuk esa eqvkotk jkf’k ds Hkqxrku dh
dk;Zokgh t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds Lrj ls djk;k tkuk visf{kr gSAlayXu%& foLr“r fooj.kA
izeq[k ‘kklu lfpo”
23. It is worthy to note here that in the order dated 13.07.2017,
the Civil Court adopted and followed the same method of
calculation, to calculate the due compensation as per enhanced
rate in terms of amended award dated 07.04.2011 and for
adjustment of the compensation, already paid by the State under
the original award dated 12.08.1983, as was applied while
calculation of the enhanced compensation, for awarding the
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (33 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased khatedar- Ghasi
Ram in Execution Petition No. 55/2012 (19/2015). To justify the
same, learned Civil Court has recorded a fact finding that since the
calculation of compensation under the original award dated
12.08.1983 was not made as per the correct rate of compensation
for acquired land nor the solatium and interest thereupon was
calculated as per Act, 1894, therefore, while making afresh
calculation as per the amended award and as per the enhanced
rate of compensation of Rs.24,000/- with solatium of 30%
thereupon and interest as per scheme of Act of 1894, the
erstwhile paid amount by State deserves to be deduced against
the interest only.
24. It may be noted here that this is the same method as was
applied by the State Government itself in making calculation of the
enhanced award, payable to legal heirs of khatedar-Ghasi Ram as
per the revised/re-determined rate of compensation under order
dated 27.03.1992.
25. Otherwise also, when the calculation of compensation made
as per the rate prescribed in the original award dated 12.08.1983
was not held correct, then, it may not be said that amount paid by
the State as per the original award was considered against the
principal compensation. For such charge (Annexure-1), was
rejected by the Civil Court and calculation of enhanced
compensation as per amended award dated 07.04.2011 and the
amount, paid by the State under the previous award dated
12.08.1983, was adjusted against interest.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (34 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
26. For ready reference, it would not be out of place to
reproduce the calculation made by the Civil Court in the order
dated 13.07.2017 for the compensation payable to respondents
and deductions as has been made for the amount already paid by
the State Government to the respondents under the original award
dated 12.08.1983:-
“vc bu fLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZx.k ds lEiw.kZ izdj.k dks ns[ksa rks
izkFkhZx.k U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds i’pkr~~ Lo;a dh fofHkUu vokIr dh
xbZ [kljk uEcj ls fHkUu&fHkUu Hkwfe vFkkZr dqy vokIr dh xbZ dqy
268 ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe gsrq :i;s 24000@& ek= izfr ch?kk dh nj
ls eqvkotk jkf’k vkSj ml ij foKfIr tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls dCtk
ysus dh frfFk rd 12 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls jkf’k ,oa lksysf’k;e jkf’k
ds :i esa 30 izfr’kr jkf’k izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh fn[kkbZ nsrs gSaA bu
fLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa Hkh mHk; i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn ugha gS
rFkk Lohd“r fLFkfr gSA bl fLFkfr ds i’pkr~~ tks x.kuk i=
vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mldks ns[ksa rks vizkFkhZx.k
}kjk vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe dh eqvkotk nj esa iwoZ esa iznRr eqvkotk
nj ,oa ckn esa U;k;ky; ds vkns’k }kjk iznRr eqvkotk nj ds varj
dh x.kuk djrs gq, izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks mfpr ugha gSA bl
lEcU/k esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk tks x.kuk djrs gq, x.kuk pkVZ izLrqr fd;k
x;k gS og iw.kZr;k mfpr fn[kkbZ nsrk gS] vFkkZr izkFkhZx.k 268 ch?kk
15 fcLok Hkwfe dh eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s 24]000@& ek= ek= izfr ch?
kk dh nj dqy eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s 6]45]0000@& ek= rFkk mDr
jde ij 12 izfr’kr okf”kZr dh nj ls 206 fnu dh vFkkZr jkf’k :i;s
4]36]831@& ek= ,oa 30 izfr’kr lksysf’k;e jkf’k :i;s
19]35]000@& ek= gksrh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dqy ewy eqvkotk
jkf’k :i;s 88]21]331@& ek= izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh fn[kkbZ nsrs gSA
pwafd vizkFkhZx.k flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk izkjEHk ls izkFkhZx.k dks izkIr gksus
okyh ewy eqvkotk jkf’k ds lEcU/k esa x.kuk =qfViw.kZ dh xbZ gSA vr%
mudh x.kuk pkVZ yS’kek= Hkh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha jgrh gS]
ysfdu izkFkhZx.k ukFkw oxS0 }kjk dqy eqvkotk jkf’k ds i’pkr~ tks
C;kt dh x.kuk ,oa mUgsa le;≤ ij flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk iznRr
dh xbZ jkf’k dk lek;kstu lEcU/kh tks x.kuk dh xbZ gS] og Hkh
mfpr ugha gS] D;ksafd izkFkhZx.k }kjk blesa C;kt ij C;kt dh x.kuk
ds lkFk&lkFk x.kuk Hkh =qfViw.kZ dh xbZ gSA vr% bl lEcU/k esa
izkFkhZx.k }kjk dqy eqvkotk jkf’k ds i’pkr~ izLrqr dh xbZ x.kuk
Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSAbl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dh tks lEiw.kZ 268 ch?kk 15 fcLok
Hkwfe :i;s 24]000@& ek= izfr ch?kk dh nj ls vokIr dh xbZ gS](Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (35 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]mlds lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZx.k flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij
iznRr dh xbZ jkf’k dks lek;ksftr djrs gq, x.kuk djsa rks og fuEu
izdkj vkrh gS&
,- 268 ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe@eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s 4000@ izfr ch?kk dqy 64]50]000@&
jkf’k
ch- 4-02-82 ls 28-8-82 rd 12 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls 206 fnu dh 4]36]831@&
vfrfjDr jkf’k
lh- 30 izfr’kr lksysf’k;e jkf’k 19]35]000@&
dqy eqvkotk jkf’k 8821831@&
Mh- ,d o”kZ ¼28-8-82 ls 27-8-83½ dk 9 izfr’kr okf”kZd C;kt%& 7]93]965@&
bZ- 2 o”kZ 7 ekg 8 fnu ¼28-8-83 ls 6-4-86½ dk 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd C;kt 3447462@&
vFkkZr dqy C;kt jkf’k ¼Mh+bZ½= 4241427@&
,Q flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk 7-04-86 dks vnk jkf’k 3118442@&
th ¼,Q½ dks lek;kstu ds i’pkr~ ‘ks”k C;kt jkf’k 1122985@&
,p 4 ekg 11 fnu ¼6-04-86 ls 19-8-86½ rd dk 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd C;kt 482125@&
¼th+,p½ vFkkZr dqy cdk;k C;kt= 1605110@&
vkbZ 20-8-86 dks flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k 949592@&
ts ¼vkbZ½ dks lek;kstu ds i’pkr~ C;kt jkf’k 655518@&
ds 27 o”kZ 3 ekg 16 fnu ¼20-8-86 ls 7-12-13½ dk 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd 35999875@&
C;kt jkf’k
vFkkZr dqy C;kt ¼ts+ds½ 36655393@&
,y- 7-12-13 dks foHkkx }kjk fd;k Hkqxrku 18288000@&
,e- ¼,y½ dks lek;kstu ds i’pkr~ ‘ks”k C;kt jkf’k 18367393@&
,u- 7-1-14 dks foHkkx }kjk fd;k x;k Hkqxrku 385707@&
vks ¼,u½ dks lek;kstu ds i’pkr~ ‘ks”k C;kt jkf’k 17981686@&
ih 8-1-14 ls 8-817 rd ¼laHkkfor Hkqxrku frfFk rd½ 15 izfr’kr okf”kZd 4643625@&
C;kt
vFkkZr dqy C;kt ¼vks+ih½ 22625311@&
D;w- dqy eqvkotk jkf’k = 8821831@&+C;kt = 22625311 31447142@&bl izdkj mijksDr foospukuqlkj vizkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 yxk;r
3 dh vksj ls tks x.kuk izi= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] og yS’kek= Hkh
Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS ,oa lkFk gh lkFk izkFkhZx.k dh vksj
ls tks x.kuk izi= is’k fd;k x;k gS og dqy eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s
88]21]831@& ek= dh voLFkk rd va’kr% Lohdkj fd;s tkus ,oa
rRi’pkr~ C;kt x.kuk lEcU/kh izi= vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS
vkSj C;kt x.kuk mijksDrkuqlkj dh tkdj bl voLFkk ij izkFkhZx.k
vizkFkhZx.k ls :i;s 3]14]47]142@& ek= izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh fn[kkbZ
nsrs gSaA vizkFkhZx.k dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os mijksDrkuqlkj
izkFkhZx.k dks jkf’k dh vnk;xh fu;ekuqlkj djsaA”
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (36 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
27. It is further noteworthy that the petitioners-State did not
challenge the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Civil Court
before the Higher Forum at the first instance, rather only chose to
file an application dated 08.08.2017 seeking to review/recall the
same by the Civil Court itself. During hearing of the application for
recalling/review, when the issue of adopting two different methods
of calculation by the State Government, to calculate the enhanced
award differently in the present case, then made in case of
Nathulal & Ors. Vs. Legal Representatives of deceased khatedar-
Ghasi Ram, came to force, learned Civil Court passed a specific
order dated 03.04.2018. In this order, it was clearly held that the
order dated 13.07.2017 has been passed on merits, hence, in the
calculation of due compensation made therein, no recall/ review
can be made except to make some clerical or arithmetical
corrections within scope of Section 152 CPC. It was also noted
specifically that the State Government has not assailed the order
dated 13.07.2017 before higher forum and same has attained
finality. The copy of the order dated 03.04.2018 is also available
on record and it would not be out of place to reproduce the same
hereunder:-
“odhy i{kdkjku mifLFkrA mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls bl
U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 13-07-2017 dks fjdkWy@fjO;w
djus ij cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh ,oa fyf[kr cgl dk
voyksdu fd;k x;kA
en;wu dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= esa eqvkotk jkf’k o
C;kt jkf’k ds lEcU/k esa tks vk{ksi mBk;s x;s gS os bl LVst
ij nLrkosth lk{; ds vHkko esa Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha
ik;s tkrs gS] D;ksafd bl U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 13-07-
2017 ds fo:) mldh vksj ls dksbZ vihy] fjohtu vkfn
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (37 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]is’k ugha dh xbZ gSA blfy, xq.kkoxq.k ij vkns’k fnukad 13-
07-2017 ds iqu% ijh{k.k ds dksbZ fof/kd vk/kkj ugha gSA
U;k;ky; dsoy /kkjk 152 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr
fyfidh; o x.kukRed =qfV dks gh lq/kkj ldrk gSA
i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s izkFkZuk i= ,oa fyf[kr
cgl vkfn ds voyksdu ls mDr izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k
gsrq i{kdkjku ls fuEu fLFkfr ‘kiFk i= ij Li”V djk;k
tkuk vko’;d gS%&
1- en~;wu o fMdzhnkj ‘kiFk i= }kjk Li”V djsa fd D;k bl
U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 13-07-2017 esa dksbZ fyfidh; ;k
x.kukRed =qfV gS\ ;fn gka rks D;k\
2- en~;wu ‘kiFk i= }kjk Li”V djsa fd D;k ^^ukFkwjke** ls
lacaf/kr vokfIr o eqvkotk dh dk;Zokgh esa en~;wu }kjk mls
fofHkUu le;ksa ij Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf’k dks C;kt jkf’k esa
de dj ‘ks”k C;kt ,oa ewy jkf’k dks tksM+dj C;kt dh
x.kuk dh xbZ Fkh vFkok ugha\
3- en~;uw ‘kiFk i= }kjk Li”V djsa fd ^^ukFkwjke** ls
lEcfU/kr ekeys o bl ekeysa dh vokfIr lEcU/kh
dk;Zokgh ,d gh uksfVfQds’ku }kjk dh xbZ Fkh ,oa D;k
ukFkwjke ds ekeysa esa fof/k o foRr foHkkkx }kjk Hkqxrku dh
xbZ jkf’k dh x.kuk nh xbZ jkf’k dks C;kt jkf’k esa
lek;ksftr djrs gq, ‘ks”k C;kt o ewy jde tksMdj vkxkeh
C;kt dh x.kuk ‘ks”k C;kt o ewy jkf’k ds ;ksx ij dh xbZ \
;fn gka rks fMdzhnkj dks mDrkuqlkj Hkqxrku D;ksa ugha fd;k
tk jgk gS ,oa mldk ekeyk fdl izdkj ^^ukFkwjke** ls fHkUu
gS\
bl ckcr Li”V mRrj fn;k tkosaA
i=koyh okLrs is’k gksus ‘kiFk i= fMdzhnkj o e~;wu
fnukad 20-04-16 dks is’k gksA”
(emphasis supplied)
28. It may be noted here that the order dated 03.04.2018 has
not been questioned by the petitioners herein in the present writ
petition, nor any specific reply/explanation to the queries put forth
by the Civil Court, more particularly, in respect of point No.3,
mentioned hereinabove, was/is submitted by the State
Government, hence, taking note of such stand of the petitioners-
State, learned Civil Court passed the order dated 14.10.2019
wherein not only the calculation of amended award as made in the
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (38 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
order dated 13.07.2017 was affirmed but since, an arithmetical
mistake of not calculating the interest of one month from
08.12.2013 to 07.01.2014 in the order dated 13.07.2017 came to
notice and the interest of future period up to 02.11.2019 was re-
calculated therein. There appears no dissimilarity and calculation
of enhanced compenstiaon so also adjustment of amount paid by
State under the original award has been deduced against the
interest accrued upon the calculated amount of enhanced
compensation, applying the same methodology, as was applied in
calculating the enhanced compensation of another khatedar
Nathuram, legal heir of Ghasi Ram in the order dated 24.01.2017
(supra). The chart of re-calculation, finds place in the order dated
14.10.2019 itself and according to this calculation the due and
unpaid compensation with solatium and interest as on 02.11.2019
comes to the tune of Rs. 3,46,13,863/-.
29. It is important to note that in the impugned orders, the
deduction of compensation paid by the State Government, in
furtherance to the original award dated 12.08.1983 has been
made in the same manner as was made by the State Government
and accepted by the Civil Court, while calculating the enhanced
compensation in case of Execution Petition No. 55/2012 relating to
acquired land of khatedar-Ghasi Ram through his legal
representatives Nathu and others.
30. Having perused the calculation, as made by the Civil Court in
the orders dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019, in the considered
opinion of this Court, it is not a case where the interest upon
interest has been calculated nor it is a case that the Civil Court
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (39 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
has breached the rule of appropriation as laid down in case of
Prem Nath Kapur (supra) and affirmed in case of Gurpreet Singh
(supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Civil Court has not
erred in rejected the calculation as per chart (Annexure-2),
submitted by the petitioners-State based on the principle of equity
and maintaining parity with the calculation made in case of Nathu
Ram. Thus, the contentions made by and on behalf of petitioners-
State are hereby rejected.
31. In the opinion of this Court, it is a clear case where the
calculation of compensation as per amended award/order dated
07.04.2011 has been made properly and the amount paid by the
State Government and received by the respondents-khatedars
under the original award dated 12.08.1983 has been deduced in
the same manner against the interest, as was deduced by the
State Government itself and followed by the Civil Court while
calculating the compensation as per the revised/enhanced rate for
the acquired lands of khatedar-Ghasi Ram (Now deceased and
represented through his legal representatives Nathu and others) in
execution application No.55/2012 (19/2015). Further, it is not
disputed that the compensation as calculated in case of Ghasi Ram
has already been decided to be paid by the State Government and
has been paid to the khatedars. Therefore, petitioners-State may
not be permitted to apply any different formula or method other
than, which has been applied and followed in calculation of the
compensation payable to the acquired land of khatedar- Ghasi
Ram and no inequality/ disparity in making calculation of
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (40 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]
enhanced compensation, payable to the respondents can be
allowed to be made.
32. As a final result, calculation of enhanced compensation as
made in the orders impugned does not warrant any interference in
the writ jurisdiction, which is otherwise an equitable jurisdiction,
hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Incidently, the stay
order dated 05.10.2021 also stands vacated and comes to an end.
33. Since against the due compensation, as calculated in the
order dated 14.10.2019, petitioners have paid an amount of
Rs.1,13,95,294/- (Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount +
Rs.28,20,569/- interest amount up to 31.10.2021) and till today
against recovery of remaining amount, stay was in operation in
light of the order dated 05.10.2021 which has come to an end
now, therefore, it is hereby observed that in case petitioners make
payment of differential amount to respondents within a period of
two months, same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum as fixed in the order dated 05.10.2021, failing which,
thereafter, on the differential unpaid amount of compensation, the
rate of interest, as prescribed in the amended award/order dated
07.04.2011 shall apply.
34. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SUNIL SOLANKI/PS
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 03:56:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 01:10:07 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
