# 7 S.C.R. 242 JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS v. VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2011] 7 S.C.R. 242
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-07-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7374 of 2003
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/7-s-c-r-242-jaipur-development-authority-and-others-v-vijay-kumar-data-and-27790
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953:
c
ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land -
For planned
development of Jaipur city - Scheme popularly known as 'Lal
Kothi Scheme' - Transfers of portions of the acquired land
effected after publication of notification u/s 4 and declaration
u/s 6 - Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation to
0
landowners and beneficiaries of illegal transfers and also
ordering allotment of plots of 1000-2000 sq. yd. to landowners,
their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the
acquired land - In the instant case, transferee of the Khatear
obtaining 1500 sq. yd. land through execution proceedings,
E pursuant to the allotment order of LAO and further transfeffing
the same to respondents and others - Respondents filing
applications u/s 83 of Jaipur Development Authority Act
questioning auction of plot nos. C-113 and C-114 by the
Development Authority - Applications rejected by Appellate
Tribunal - The writ petitions filed by respondents dismissed
F by single Judge of High Court - However, Division Bench of
the High Court directing regularization of plots in their favour
- HELD: Division Bench of the High Court committed serious
error by entertaining an altogether new case set up on behalf
of the respondents (writ petitioners), who had not even prayed
G for amendment of the pleadings, and granting relief to them
by declaring that they are entitled to get benefit of the policy
of regularization contained in the letter dated 6.12.2001 - The
Division Bench could not rely upon the so-called policy
decision stated to have been taken by the Government in
H
242
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
243
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR.
flagrant violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court
A
wherein it was categorically held that the transactions involving
transfer of land after the issue of notification u/s 4 were nullity
and the Land Acquisition Officer did not have the jurisdiction
to direct allotment of land to the awardeeslsub awardees, their
nominees/sub-nominees - The basics of judicial discipline
B
required that the Division Bench of the High Court should
have followed the law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhey
Shyam's case and Dau/at Mal Jain's case and refused relief
to the respondents - Further, the Division Bench of the High
Court ignored the unchallenged findings recorded by the c
Tribunal and the trial court that the khatedar's transferee, from
whom the respondents (writ petitioners) had purchased the
plots, did not have valid title over the land and he had no right
to secure allotment of 1500 sq. yd. land in the 'Lal Kothi
Scheme' - The order of High .Court set aside with cost of Rs.
D
5 lac to be paid by the respondents for pursuing unwarranted
litigation for the last 15 years - Cost to be deposited with
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority -
Jaipur
Development Authority Act, 1982 -
s. 83 -
Rajasthan
Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 -
Judicial discipline - Precedent - Constitution of India, 1950
E
-
Article 226 -
Writ petition -
New Plea -
Costs -·
Administration of Justice - Party pursuing unwarranted
litigation - Imposition of cost.
Constitution of India, 1950:
F
Articles 77 and 166 - Policy decision - Connotation of
- Acquisition of land - Land Acquisition Officer awarding
compensation to land owners and beneficiaries of illegal
transfers and ordering allotment of 1000-2000 sq. yd. plots
G
to landowners their transferees and nominees/sub-nominess,
out of the acquired land - Courts holding that Land Acquisition
Officer did not have jurisdiction to direct such allotment -
Recommendations made by Committee set up by Minister
of Urban Development and Housing, suggesting the
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A methodology for allotment of land in terms of directions given
by Land Acquisition Officer -Letter dated 6.12.2001 issued
purporting to contain the policy - HELD: Unless an order is
expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as
the case may b

## Text

_Characters 0–39,936 of 88,208. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39936 for what follows._

A
8
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 242
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
v.
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 7374 of 2003)
JULY 12, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953:
c
ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land -
For planned
development of Jaipur city - Scheme popularly known as 'Lal
Kothi Scheme' - Transfers of portions of the acquired land
effected after publication of notification u/s 4 and declaration
u/s 6 - Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation to
0
landowners and beneficiaries of illegal transfers and also
ordering allotment of plots of 1000-2000 sq. yd. to landowners,
their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the
acquired land - In the instant case, transferee of the Khatear
obtaining 1500 sq. yd. land through execution proceedings,
E pursuant to the allotment order of LAO and further transfeffing
the same to respondents and others - Respondents filing
applications u/s 83 of Jaipur Development Authority Act
questioning auction of plot nos. C-113 and C-114 by the
Development Authority - Applications rejected by Appellate
Tribunal - The writ petitions filed by respondents dismissed
F by single Judge of High Court - However, Division Bench of
the High Court directing regularization of plots in their favour
- HELD: Division Bench of the High Court committed serious
error by entertaining an altogether new case set up on behalf
of the respondents (writ petitioners), who had not even prayed
G for amendment of the pleadings, and granting relief to them
by declaring that they are entitled to get benefit of the policy
of regularization contained in the letter dated 6.12.2001 - The
Division Bench could not rely upon the so-called policy
decision stated to have been taken by the Government in
H
242
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
243
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR.
flagrant violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court
A
wherein it was categorically held that the transactions involving
transfer of land after the issue of notification u/s 4 were nullity
and the Land Acquisition Officer did not have the jurisdiction
to direct allotment of land to the awardeeslsub awardees, their
nominees/sub-nominees - The basics of judicial discipline
B
required that the Division Bench of the High Court should
have followed the law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhey
Shyam's case and Dau/at Mal Jain's case and refused relief
to the respondents - Further, the Division Bench of the High
Court ignored the unchallenged findings recorded by the c
Tribunal and the trial court that the khatedar's transferee, from
whom the respondents (writ petitioners) had purchased the
plots, did not have valid title over the land and he had no right
to secure allotment of 1500 sq. yd. land in the 'Lal Kothi
Scheme' - The order of High .Court set aside with cost of Rs.
D
5 lac to be paid by the respondents for pursuing unwarranted
litigation for the last 15 years - Cost to be deposited with
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority -
Jaipur
Development Authority Act, 1982 -
s. 83 -
Rajasthan
Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 -
Judicial discipline - Precedent - Constitution of India, 1950
E
-
Article 226 -
Writ petition -
New Plea -
Costs -·
Administration of Justice - Party pursuing unwarranted
litigation - Imposition of cost.
Constitution of India, 1950:
F
Articles 77 and 166 - Policy decision - Connotation of
- Acquisition of land - Land Acquisition Officer awarding
compensation to land owners and beneficiaries of illegal
transfers and ordering allotment of 1000-2000 sq. yd. plots
G
to landowners their transferees and nominees/sub-nominess,
out of the acquired land - Courts holding that Land Acquisition
Officer did not have jurisdiction to direct such allotment -
Recommendations made by Committee set up by Minister
of Urban Development and Housing, suggesting the
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A methodology for allotment of land in terms of directions given
by Land Acquisition Officer -Letter dated 6.12.2001 issued
purporting to contain the policy - HELD: Unless an order is
expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as
the case may be, and is authenticated in the manner
s prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an
order made on behalf of the Government - In the instant case,
a reading of letter dated 6.12.2001 shows that it was neither
expressed in the name of the Governor nor was it
authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules - That
c letter merely speaks of the discussion made by the Committee
and the decision taken by it - By no stretch of imagination
the same can be treated as a policy decision of the
Government within the meaning of Article 166 - Since the so
called policy decision contained in letter dated 6.12.2001 is
0
contrary to the law declared by Supreme Court, the State
Government and the appellant are restrained from taking any
action in future on the basis of the said letter - Administrative
Law - Policy decision.
The State Government, pursuant to the notification
E dated 13.5.1960 issued u/s 4 of the Rajasthan Land
Acquisition Act, 1953 (the 1953 Act), acquired 552 bighas
8 biswas land for planned development of Jaipur city. The
land was to be utilised by Urban Improvement Trust,
Jaipur, for construction of new building of the Legislative
F Assembly, educational institutions, stadium complex,
district shopping Centres, M.L.A. quarters etc. The
scheme came to be popularly known as 'Lal Kothi
Scheme'. Subsequent to the notification u/s 4 and
declaration u/s 6, several persons purchased the portions
G of "the acquired land from the khatedars. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed ail award dated 9.1.1964
whereby he not only determined the amount of
compensation payable to the landowners and the
beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also directed
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
245
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR.
allotment of plots measuring 1000-2000 square yards to A
the owners; their transferees and nominees/subnominees out of the acquired land. After the award was
passed, one 'GN', who purchased the acquired land
much after publication of notification u/s 4 and
declaration u/s 6, filed an execution application and
B
succeeded in getting an order for delivery of possession
of 1500 square yards of land in the 'Lal Kothi Scheme'.
Subsequently, when large number of execution
applications were filed by the beneficiaries, the State and
the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (predecessor"inc
interest of Jaipur Development Authority) questioned the
authority of the Land Acquisition Officer to give direction
for allotment of land. The executing court partly upheld
the objection but the revisions filed by the beneficiaries
were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
D
holding that the legality of the award could not be
challenged in the execution proceedings.
During the pendency of litigation before different
courts, the then Minister of Urban Development and
Housing, who was also Chairman of the Trust,
E
constituted a Committee for suggesting the methodology
for allotment of land in terms of the directions given by
the land Acquisition Officer. The members of the
Committee recommended that land be allotted to the
beneficiaries of illegal transactions. A circular disguised
F
as policy decision was issued to this effect.
'GN' had filed a suit (Civil Suit No.270/1985) for
injunction, with the prayer that the defendant-Authority
(the appellant) be restrained from interfering with his G
possession over plot Nos.C-112 to C-115 in the Lal Kothi
Scheme. During the pendency of the suit, he transferred
the plots to the respondents and two others by registered
sale deeds, who were impleaded as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5
to the suit. The trial court held that plaintiff No.1 ('GN') was
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A . not entitled to relief of injunction because. he could not
prove his ownership over the suit land. The respondents
filed applications u/s 83 of the Jaipur Development
Authority Act, 1982 questioning the notice dated
19.12.1996 issued by the appellant for auction of plot Nos.
B C-113 and C-114. The Appellate Tribunal relied upon the
judgments in Radhey Shyam's1 case and Dau/at Mal Jain's2
case and held that the respondents did not have the
locus to challenge the proposed auction because
transactions involving purchase of land by 'GN' from the
c original Khatedar and subsequent purchase of plots by
the respondents were nullity. The respondents
challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal in writ
petitions which were dismissed by the single Judge of
the High Court. However, the Division Bench of the High
D Court entertained and accepted an altogether new. case
put forward by the writ petitioners that in terms of the
policy decision taken by the State Government, which
was circulated by letter dated 6.12.2001 and order dated
9.1.2002 passed by another Division Bench in D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.5776/2001 (suo motu) - Rajasthan High
E Court v. State of Rajasthan and others, the writ petitioners
(respondents in the instant appeals) were entitled to
regularization of the plots in question. Aggrieved, the
Jaipur Development Authority and others filed the
appeals.
F
The question for consideration before the Court
was: whether the Division Bench of the High Court could
have granted relief to the respondents by entertaining an
altogether new case set up with reference to the so called
G policy framed by the State Government for regularization
of the illegal allotments/ encroachments of the acquired
1.
Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey 1994 (2) SCR 1 = (1994) 4 SCC
370.
2.
Secretaty, Jaipur Development Authority v. Dau/at Mal Jain and Others 1996
H
(6) Suppl. SCR 584 = (1997) 1 sec 35.
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
247
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR.
land in the Lal Kothi and Prithviraj Nagar Schemes?
A
. Allowing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the only issue
raised. in the writ petitions filed by the respondents was
whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the
applications filed by them against the auction of plot Nos.
C-113 and C-114, Lal Kothi Scheme. The Tribunal had
negated the respondents' challenge on the ground that
'GN', from whom they had purchased the plots under sale
deeds dated 18.4.1993, did not have valid title. The
C
Tribunal noted that 'GN' had purchased the land from its
Khatedar after publication of the notification issued u/s
4 and held that such transactions did not create any title
in his favour. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgments
of this Court in Radhey Shyam's case and Daulat Mal
D
Jain's case and held that once the Supreme Court had
declared the transactions involving' purchase of the
acquired land and the direction given by the Land
Acquisition Officer for allotment of land to the awardees,
sub-awardees and their nominees/sub-nominees to be
E
nullity, the transferees of such purchasers cannot claim
any right over the plots which were auctioned by the
appellant. In the opinion of the Tribunal, when the
purchase of land by 'GN' was null and void, he could not
have transferred a valid title in favour of the respondents
F
so as to enable them to challenge the advertisement
issued by the appellant for auction of the two plots. The
single Judge of the High Court dismissed both the writ
petitions. [para 27] [274-8-G]
1.2. The Division Bench of the High Court committed
G
serious error by entertaining an altogether new case set
up on behalf of the respondents, who had not even
prayed for amendment of the pleadings, and granted
relief to them by declaring that they are entitled to get
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 7 S.C.R.
A benefit of the policy of regularization contained in the
letter dated 6.12.2001. The recommendations made by the
Committee were given the colour of the Government's
decision (though, no material has been placed on record
to show that the recommendations made by the
B Committee were accepted by the. State Government) as
would appear from letter dated 6.12.2001 written by
Deputy Secretary (Administration), Urban Development
Department to the Secretary, Jaipur. The Division Bench
could not have rely upon the so called policy decision
c taken by the Government in flagrant violation of the two
judgments of this Court wherein it was categorically held
that the transactions involving transfer of land after the
issue of notification u/s 4 were nullity and the Land
Acquisition Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct
allotment of land to the awardees/sub awardees, their
D nominees/sub-nominees. The basics of judicial discipline
required that the Division Bench of the High Court should
have followed the law laid down by this Court in Radhey
Shyam's case and Daulat Mal Jain's case and refused
relief to the respondents. [para 28-29) [275-A-D; 279-C-E]
E
F
Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam 1994
(2) SCR 1 = (1994) 4 SCC 370; Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur v. Dau/at Mal Jain and others
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 584 = (1997) 1 sec 35 - relied on.
Narpat Singh vs. Jaipur Development Authority 2002 (3)
SCR 365 = (2002) 4 SCC 666 - referred to.
1.3. Another grave error committed by the Division
Bench of the High Court is that it ignored the
G unchallenged findings recorded by the Tribunal and the
trial court that 'GN' did not have valid title over the land
and he had no right to secure allotment of 1500 sq. yds.
land ·in the Lal Kothi Scheme and that the order passed
by the executing court for delivery of possession was
H liable to be ignored in view of the law laid down in Radhey
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
249
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR.
Shyam's case and Dau/at Mal Jain's case. [para 30) [279A
F-G]
1.4. As regards the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by
the other Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5776/2001 (suo motu) titled
8
Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan, the single Judge
of the High Court suo motu took cognizance of three
different news items dated 8.12.2001, 10.12.2001 and
11.12.2001 published in the daily newspaper, a·nd the
matter was subsequently placed before the Division C
Bench which had the roster to hear such matters. In the
considered view of this Court, the single Judge was not
at all justified in suo motu taking cognizance of the
newspaper reports and the order made by him could
appropriately be termed as coram non judis. On behalf of
the State Government and the appellant, affidavits were
D
filed to justify the so called policy contained in letter dated
6.12.2001. The Division Bench did take cognizance of the
fact that people having connection in the power corridors
and those who were economically affluent had illegally
taken possession of the acquired land and raised
E
construction, but approved the so-called policy decision
taken by the State Government to regularize the illegal
transfers. [para 31) [279-H; 280-A-F]
1.5. The High Court had undertaken a Wholly
F
unwarranted and unjustified exercise for putting the seal
of approval on the so called policy contained in letter
dated 6.12.2001 and, that too, by ignoring the law laid
down by this Court in Radhey Shyam's case and Oaulat
Mal Jain's case. What the High Court has dohe is to G
legitimize the transactions, which were declared illegal by
this Court and this was clearly impermissible. The High
Court's understanding of the so called policy framed by
the Government was clearly erroneous. The letter written
by
Deputy
Secretary
(Administration),
l!rban
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A Development Department to the Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be treated as a policy decision taken by the
State Government. No document was produced before
the High Court and none has been produced before this
B Court to show that the recommendations made by the
Committee of Ministers had been approved by the State
Government culminating in issuance of a policy circular.
[para 32) [282-F-H; 283-A-B]
C
2.1. It is trite to say that all executive actions of the
Government of India and the Government of a State are
required to be taken in the name of the President or the
Governor of the State concerned, as the case may be
[Articles 77(1) and 166(1)). Orders and other instruments
made and executed in the name of the President or the
D Governor of a State are required to be authenticated in
such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by
the President or the Governor. [Articles 77(2) and 166(2)).
Unless an order is expressed in the name of the President
or. the Governor and is authenticated in the manner
E prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as
an order made on behalf of the Government. In the instant
case, a reading of letter dated 6.12.2001 shows that it was
neither expressed in the name of the Governor nor was
it authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules.
F That letter merely speaks of the discussion made by the
Committee and the decision taken by it. By no stretch of
imagination the same can be treated as a policy decision
of the Government within the meaning of Article 166 of
the Constitution. [para 32-33) [283-A-C; 285-C-D]
G
H
State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shanker 1987 ( 3 ) SCR 1 =
(1987) 3 sec 34 - relied on.
2.2. Even otherwise, the High Court should have
quashed the said policy because it was clearly contrary
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
251
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR.
:> the law declared by this Court in Radhey Shyam's case
A
•nd Daulat Mal Jain's case and· was a crude attempt by
lhe political functionaries concerned of the State to
megalise what had already been declared illegal by this
!!tourt. [para 34] [285-E-F]
2.3. Since the so called policy decision contained in
metter dated 6.12.2001 is contrary to the law declared by
lhis Court, the State Government and the app'ellant are
•estrained from taking any action in future on the basis
.,f the said letter. [para 37] [286-C] .
.
B
c
3.1. Although, prima facie the Court is satisfied that
iexecution of lease deeds by the appellant in favour of
.;ome persons in 2002 and 2003 is a clear indication of
lteep rooted malaise in the functioning of the appellant
mnd is also indicative of sheer favouritism and nepotism,
D
lhis Court refrains from pronouncing upon the legality of
•hose transactions because the beneficiaries are not
10arties to these appeals. [para 35] [285-G]
3.2. The impugned judgment is set aside. The writ
E
-->etitions filed by the respondents are dismissed and they
are directed to pay cost of Rs.5 lac for pursuing
-Jnwarranted litigation for last over 15 years. The amount
-:>f cost shall be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal
:Services Authority. _The respondents shall be entitled to
F
·ecover the price paid to the 'GN' along with the amount
:>f cost by availing appropriate legal remedy. [para 36]
:286-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
1994 (2) SCR1
relied on
para 3
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 584
relied on
para 10
2002 (3) SCR 365
referred to
para 11
1987 (3) SCR 1
relied on
para 32
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 7 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7374 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 29. 7.2002 of the HighCourt of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special•
B Appeal No. 767 of 2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047 of
1997.
c
WITH
C.A. No. 7375 of 2003.
S.K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam, Prashant Kumar,
Anurag Sharma (for Ap & J Chambers) for the Appellants.
M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Gargi B. Bhavali, Sukumar
Agarwal, Himanshu Shekhar, Annam D.N. Rao for the
D Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1, These appea 's filed by the Jaipur
Development Authority against judgment dated 29. 7.2002 of
E the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
are illustrative of how unscrupulous elements within the State
apparatus connived with the private individuals and succeeded
in partly frustrating one of the most ambitious schemes framed
by Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (for short, "the Trust")
F (predecessor of the appellant), which cqme to be popularly
known as Lal Kothi Scheme, for construction of new building
of the Legislative Assembly, educational institutions, stadium
complex, district shopping centre, MLA quarters etc.
G
2. By notification dated 13.5.1960 issued under Section
4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, "the
1953 Act"), which was published in the official gazette dated
29.6.1960, the State Government proposed the acquisition of
552 bighas 8 biswas land of village Bhojpura and Chak
H Sudershanpura for planned development of Jaipur city. The
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
253
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
land was to be utilised for the purpos.e mentioned in th.e
A
preceding paragraph. Declaration under Section 6 was issued
on 3.5.1961 and was published in the official gazette dated
11.5.1961. Thereafter, notice dated 18. 7.1961 was issued to
the land owners (Khatedars) under Section 9(1) and (3). Initially,
65 Khatedars filed claims for compensation but this figure
B
swelled to more than 137 because those who purchased land
from the Khatedars after publication of the notification issued
under Section 4 and their nominees/sub-nominees also filed
claims for compensation. The second category of persons
included Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta, Advocate and Dr. c
Bhagwan Das Khera, both of whom managed to purchase
portions of the acquired land from one of the Khatedars, namely,
Shri Vijay Lal son of Ram Sukhji. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Jaipur passed an unusual award dated 9.1.1964 whereby he
not only determined the amount of compensation payable to the
D
landowners and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also
directed allotment of plots measuring 1000 to 2000 square
yards to the owners, their transferees and nominees/subnominees out of the acquired land.
3. After passing of the award; Shri Ganesh Narayan Gupta
E
filed execution application and succeeded in getting an order
for delivery of possession of 1500 square yards land in the Lal
Kothi Scheme. The revision filed against the order of Executing
Court was dismissed by the High Court and in that sense, the
order passed by the Executing Court became final. However,
F
as will be seen hereinafter, in view of the judgment of this Court
in Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam (1994) 4
sec 370, all such orders and judgments will be deemed to have
become nullity.
4. In the meanwhile, 12 of the awardees filed applications
G
for enhancement of the compensation. District Judge, Jaipur
City, Jaipur accepted their claim. Simultaneously, he rejected
the objection raised by the State Government that the Land
Acquisition Officer did not have the jurisdiction to allot land in
lieu of or in addition to the monetary compensation. The
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A appeals filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge
were disposed of by the High Court on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the awardees and the Trust.
5. With a view to favour those who manipulated to create
documents showing purchase of land after publication of the
8 notification issued under Section 4 and who had access to the
power corridors, the State and the Trust deliberately omitted
to challenge the direction contained in the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer for allotment of land to the land owners
(awardees), transferees (sub-awardees) and their nominees/
C sub-nominees. However when large number of execution
applications were filed by the beneficiaries, the functionaries
of the State and the Trust appear to have become alive to the
grave consequences which would have ensued by
implementing the direction given by the Land Acquisition
D Officer. Therefore, they questioned the authority of the Land
Acquisition Officer to give direction for allotment of land. The
Executing Court partly upheld the objection but the revisions
filed by the beneficiaries were allowed by the Division Bench
of the High Court, which held that the legality of the award
E cannot be challenged in the execution proceedings.
6. During the pendency of litigation before different courts,
another attempt was made by the functionaries of the State to
confer legitimacy on the illegal transactions involving purchase
F of the acquired land. The then Minister of Urban Development
of Housing, who was also Chairman of the Trust, constituted a
Committee for suggesting the methodology for allotment of land
in terms of the directions given by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The members of the Committee obliged their master i.e. the
Minister and recommended that land be allotted to the
G beneficiaries of illegal transactions at the rate of Rs.8/- per
square yard. Thereafter, a circular disguised as policy decision
was issued in 1978 for allotment of land to sub-awardees and
their nominees/sub-nominees at the rate of Rs.8/- per square
yard.
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
255
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
7. In furtherance of the so called policy decision, draw of
A
lots was held on 23.12.1980 for allotment of plots to the
awardees and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers of the
acquired land and those who were successful were allotted
plots. This exercise did not satisfy all and those who could not
get plots filed writ petitions questioning the draw of lots. The
B
Division Bench of the High Court held that the directions given
by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Minister for allotment
of plots were ex-facie illegal and had the effect of defeating the
public purpose for which the land was acquired. Notwithstanding
this, the High Court granted relief to the writ petitioners on the c
ground of violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution and directed that they should also be
allotted plots as per their entitlement.
8. In the meanwhile, the Lokayukta of Rajasthan made
inquiry under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-· D
Lokayuktas Act, 1973 in the matter of illegal allotments of plots
in the Lal Kothi Scheme and submitted report dated
12.11.1992, the operative portion of which reads thus:
"In view of what has been stated above, it is prima facie
E
established that Smt Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister,
Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Rajasthan-cum-Chairman, JOA Jaipur, Shri
M.D. Kaurani, IAS, the then Commissioner, Jaipur
Development Authority and Shri Subhebhan Mitra, the then J F
Zonal Officer, Lal Kothi Scheme, JOA, Jaipur, have
blatantly misused their official position to favour a few
influential and highly placed individuals and have also
thereby caused wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss
to the Jaipur Development Authority and the public at large.
G
But Smt Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister, Urban
Development and Housing Department-cum-Chairman,
JOA is not now a public servant as defined in Section 2(1)
of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1973 · ·
(for short 'the Act') because she has ceased to be a
.. -· .·,,
H
A
B
c
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
Minister. So investigation is not being commenced against
her but the investigation deserves to be commenced
against S/Shri M.D. Kaurani, IAS and Subhebhan Mitra
under Section 1 of the Act, and I order accordingly."
However, as has happened with hundreds of similar
reports submitted by the Lokayukta and other statutory
authorities entrusted with the task of making investigation
into the acts of favouritism, nepotism and corruption
committed by the bureaucrats and public representatives,
no tan_gible action appears to have been taken on the
recommendations contained in report dated 12.11.1992.
9. The question whether the Land Acquisition Officer could
issue direction for allotment of land to the awardees, subawardees and their nominees/sub-nominees was considered
D by this Court in Radhey Shyam's case. After noticing the
provisions of Section 31(3) and (4) of the 1953 Act on which
reliance was placed by the senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, this Court held that the Land Acquisition Officer
did not have the jurisdiction, power or authority to direct
E allotment of land to the claimants. This is clearly borne out from
the following extracts of paragraph 7 of the judgment:
F
G
H
"A reading of sub-section (4) of Section 31, in our
considered view, indicates that the Land Acquisition
Officer has no power or jurisdiction to give any land under
acquisition or any other land in lieu of compensation. Subsection (4) though gives power to him in the matter of
payment of compensation, it does not empower him to
give any land in lieu of compensation. Sub-section (3)
expressly gives power "only to allot any other land in
exchange". In other words the land under acquisition is not
liable to be allotted in lieu of compensation except under
Section 31(3), that too only to a person having limited
interest.
........... The problem could be looked at from a different
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
257
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
angle. Under Section 4(1), the appropriate Government
A
notifies a particular land needed for public purpose. On
publication of the declaration under Section 6, the extent
of the land with specified demarcation gets crystallised as
the land needed for a public purp_ose. If the enquiry under
Section 5-A was dispensed with, exercising the power
B
under Section 17(1 ), the Collector on issuance of notice
under Sections 17, 9 and 10 is entitled to take possession
of the acquired land for use of public purpose. Even
otherwise on making the award and offering to pay
compensation he is empowered under Section 16 to take c
possession of the land. Such land vests in the Government
free from all encumbrances. The only power for the
Government under Section 48 is to denotify the lands
before possession is taken. Thus, in the scheme of the
Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to create
D
an encumbrance or right in the erstwhile owner to claim
possession of a part of the acquired land in lieu of
compensation. Such power of the Land Acquisition Officer
if is exercised would be self-defeating and subversive to
public purpose."
E
(emphasis supplied)
The Court also considered the question whether the
111ppellant could challenge the award in the execution
->roceedings and answered the same in affirmative. The
F
easons for this conclusion are contained in para 8 of the
•udgment, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
• ..... We have already said that what is executable is only
an award under Section 26(2), namely, the amount
awarded or the claims of the interests determined of the
G
respective persons in the acquired lands. Therefore, the
decree cannot incorporate any matter other than the
matters determined under Section 11 or those referred to
arid determined under Section 18 and no other. Since we
have already held that the Land Acquisition Officer has
H
A
B
c
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 7 S.C.R.
no power or jurisdiction to allot land in lie·u of
compensation, the decree even, if any, under Section 18
to the extent of any recognition of the directions in the
award for the allotment of the land given under Section
11 is a nullity. It is open to the appellant to raise the
·invalidity, nullity of the decree in execution in that behalf.
Accordingly we hold that the execution proceedings
directing delivery of possession of the land as contained
in the award is, invalid, void and inexecutable ...... "
(emphasis supplied)
10. The legality and correctness of order dated 24.9.1993
passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in
D.B.C.S.A.W. No.680 of 1992 was considered in Secretary,
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Dau/at Mal Jain and
D others (1997) 1 SCC 35. This Court noted that the Lokayukta
of Rajasthan had severely criticized the actions of the then
Minister of Urban Development and Housing Department,
Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority and Zonal Officer
of Lal Kothi Scheme, referred to the Rajasthan Improvement
E Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and held:
F
G
H
"Therefore, there was no policy laid by the Government
and it cannot be laid contrary to the aforestated rules and
no such power was given to individual Minister by
executive action, as the land was already notified
conclusively under Se.ction 6(1) for public purpose,
namely, earmarked scheme. Since the persons whose
land was acquired were not owners having limited interest
therein, qua the owners having lost right, title and interest
therein, the sub-awardees or nominees, after the
acquisition under Section 4(1 ), would acquire no title to
the land nor such ultra vires acts of the Minister would
bind the Government. The actions, therefore, taken by the
Minister-cum-Chairman of the appellate authority and
bureaucrats for obvious reasons would not clothe the
respondents with any vestige of right to allotment.
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
259
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Acceptance of the contentions of the respondents would
A
be fraught with dangerous consequences. It would also
bear poisonous seeds to sabotage the schemes
defeating the declared public purpose. The record
discloses that such allotment in many a case was in
violation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act which prohibits
B
holding the land in excess of the prescribed ceiling limit
of the urban land. In some instances, a person whose land
of 500 square yards was acquired, was compensated with
. allotment of 2000 square yards· and above, which is
against the public policy defeating even the Urban Land c
Ceiling Act. Would any responsible Minister or a·
bureaucrat, with a sense of public duty and responsibility,
transfer such land to sabotage the planned development
of the scheme? Answer has obviously to be in the negative.
The necessary inference is that the policy does not bear
D
any insignia of a public purpose, but appears to be a
device to get illegal gratification or distribution of public
property defeating the public purpose by misuse of public
office."
·
(emphasis supplied}
E
The Court further held that the decision taken by the
Minister and the actions of the bureaucrats were meant to
benefit only those who had illegally secured transfer of land after
the publication of the notification issued under Section 4 and
F
that the so called policy is a policy to feed corruption and to
deflect the public purpose. This is evinced from para 23 of the
judgment, which is extracted below:_ .
"There is no iota of evidence placed on record that under
the so-called policy, anyone from general public could
G
equally apply for allotment of the plots or was eligible to
apply for such allotment nor any such general policy was
brought to our notice. The ~llotment has benefited only a
specified class, namely, the awardees, sub-awardees or
nominees and none else. The decision by the Minister or H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A
the actions of the bureaucrats was limited to the above
class which included the respondents. Legitimacy was
given to the void acts of Chottey Lal, the erstwhile owner
as well as the LAO. Directions were given by the Minister
and the bureaucrats acted to allot the land under the very
B
void acts. They are ultra vires the power. These acts are
in utter disregard of the statute and the rules. Therefore,
by no stretch of imagination it can be said to have the
stamp of public policy; rather it is a policy to feed
corruption and to deflect the public purpose and to confer
c
benefits on a specified category, as described above."
(emphasis supplied)
The plea of discrimination which found favour with the High
Court was also negatived by this Court by making the following
D observations:
E
F
G
H
"The question then is whether the action of not delivering
possession of the land to the respondents on a par with
other persons who had possession is an ultra vires act and
violates Article 14 of the Constitution? We had directed
the appellants to file an affidavit explaining the actions
taken regarding the allotment which came to be made to
others. An affidavit has been filed in that behalf by Shri
Pawan Arora, Deputy Commissioner, that allotments in
respect of 47 persons were cancelled and possession was
not given. He listed various cases pending in this Court
and the High Court and executing court in respect of other
cases. It is clear from the record that as and when any
person had gone to the court to get the orders of the LAO
enforced, the appellant-Authority resisted such actions
taking consistent stand and usually adverse orders have
been subjected to decision in various proceedings.
Therefore, no blame of inaction or favouritism to others can
be.laid at the door of the present set-up of the appellantAuthority. When the Minister was the Chairman and had
made illegal allotments following which possession ·was
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v.
261
VIJAY KUMAR DATA AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
delivered, no action to unsettle any such illegal allotment
A
could have been taken then. That apart, they were awaiting
the outcome of pending cases. It would thus be clear that
the present set-up of the bureaucrats has set new
standards to suspend the claims and is trying to legalise
the ultra vires actions of Minister and predecessor
bureaucrats through· the process of law so much so that
illegal and ultra vires acts are not allowed to be legitimised
nor are to be perpetuated by aid of Article 14. That apart,
Article 14 has no application or justification to legitimise
B
an illegal and illegitimate action. Article 14 proceeds on c
the premise that a citizen has legal and valid right
enforceable at law and persons having similar right and
persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the
benefit thereof. Such person cannot be discriminated to
deny the same benefit. The rational relationship and legal
D
back-up are the foundations to invoke the doctrine of
equality in case of persons similarly situated. If some
. persons derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from
the clutches of law, similar persons cannot plead, nor the
court can countenance that benefit had from infraction of
law and must be allowed to be retained. Can one illegality
be compounded by permitting similar illegal or illegitimate
or ultra vires acts? Answer is obviously no."
E
While repelling the argument made on behalf of the
respondents that the judgment in Radhey Shyam's case was
F
per incuriam, this Court observed:
"The basic postulate of the contention is the omission to
refer to Rules 31 and 36 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition
Rules, 1956. Rule 31 was made to guide the exercise of
power of the Collector (LAO) under Section 31(3) of the
G
Act. As seen, the Government has empowered the
Collector to allot "any other land' in lieu of money
compensation only when the land acquired belongs to a
person having "limited interest in the land", like widow's
H
A
B
c
D
E
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
estate or minor's estate, Mutawali etc. In that behalf, Rule
31 amplifies the exercise of the power by the authorised
LAO. It says that the Collector .cannot force a party to take
land in lieu of cash. Where, however, the interest of the
party is so limited, as in the case of a trustee of a wakf
property or a Hindu widow, as to make it extremely difficult,
if not impossible, to arrive at an adequate cash estimate
of its value or where, from the circumstances of a case, it
is impossible to place the parties concerned by cash
compensation in the same or nearly the same position as
before acquisition, sub-section (3) enables the Collector
to arrange to award land (subject to the same limitation of
interest) in lieu of cash.