JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MAHESH SHARMA & ANR.

20. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, reported at 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249, this Court has held that the Land Acquisition Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest belonging to the Government in the land on acquisition. It reiterated the settled position of law that the Government being the owner of the land need not acquire its own land merely because person mistakenly resorted to acquire the land and later on mistakenly published notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

21. The aforesaid position was reiterated in a subsequent decision of this Court in Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 362. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of [201 OJ 11 S.C.R. A the said judgment, this Court has held that the High Court has clearly erred in setting aside the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference since it is settled law that in land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest. While laying down the B aforesaid law, this Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Ors. reported at (1955) 1 SCR 1311.

22. We may at this stage appropriately refer to the decision C of this Court in the case of Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors. reported in (1955) 1 SCR 117. In the said case this Court has held that judgment passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and such a judgment could be challenged even in execution or collateral proceedings. Court . on page 121 at para 6 held thus: "……………………… It is a fundamental principle well- established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings ………………. "

23. In the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sanahullah Mir reported in (1980) 3 SCR 281 this court F dealing with a case regarding resumption of land on pages 286-287 at para 9 held thus: – "………………… On going through these· documents it appears to us that under the influence of some high-ups a case was made out for payment of compensation to the respondent in respect of the land acquired 60 years ago by acquiring it again which naturally led to the determination of the market value of the land in or about the year 1955. The State Exchequer cannot be made to suffer for such wanton and illegal actions of its officers. The land had been resumed long ago. It belonged to the State. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] The whole proceeding of land acquisition was a nullity. The Award resulting therefrom was also-ultra vires and a nullity. It mattered little whether the proceeding was taken as a result of the fraud or mistake or otherwise. We are accepting the findings of the courts below that the respondent had not practised and fraud nor was the land acquisition proceeding started as a result of any mistake of fact. It was either as a result of gross negligence or a deliberate act on the part of the officials at the instance of some high-ups to help the respondent. It is well-settled that there is no question of any acquisition of the State's own land as was purported to be done in this case."

24. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is crystal clear that the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as also the Award passed for acquisition of the land was a nullity and the subsequent action of the Government de-requisitioning land by issuance of notification under Section 48 was just and proper as that was an action for rectification of the mistake. The subsequent land acquisition officer was justified in refusing to refer to the Reference Court in view of the fact that the land was already a Government land and was so described in the revenue record itself. The Land Acquisition Officer, who passed the award, committed an illegality by not only determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act but also directing for retention of the interim compensation paid under Jagir Act and also in directing for allotment of a developed plot of land admeasuring 2500 sq. yds. Initiation of the acquisition proceedings as also award passed by the said Land Acquisition Officer is nullity in the eyes of law and void ab initio and therefore could be held so and set aside in a proceeding of this nature. We, therefore, hold that the directions for payment of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act to the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent no. 1 and subsequently to respondent no. 1 are illegal and without jurisdiction as the award passed by the land acquisition officer was only an offer which itself A was a nullity. Payment made to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no. 1 and also to the respondent no. 1 as its successor is also held unwarranted as the said orders were passed considering them as the owners of the land and not as a trustee or manager. Therefore, the said orders directing for payment of compensation and withdrawal of the compensation by respondent no. 1 is held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. We set aside the said orders by allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The amount deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court, if, has been withdrawn by respondent no. 1 shall be C realized from him through the process of the High Court. The Registrar General of the High Court would take necessary steps to realise the amount paid to the respondent by invoking the security furnished and if necessary by resorting to remedy in accordance with law. In terms of the aforesaid order the appeal is allowed but we leave the parties to bear their own D costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9158 OF 2003 WITH E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9161 OF 2003 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9162 OF 2003

25. The remaining appeals may be disposed together since the facts and circumstances in these cases are similar.

26. In all these appeals, the respondents are sub-awardees who have come to the fore after a Notification under Section G 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette for acquisition of land in village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura Tehsil Jaipur., for the purpose of construction of a scheme popularly known as Lal Kothi scheme, which is adjacent to Jaipur City for a planned development of H the city. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1025 SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

27. These appeals merit the same observations as we have made in Civil Appeal No. 8590 of 2003, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to pass an award in respect of the land acquired, which was already vested with the Government after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act (hereinafter "Jagir Act" for short) on 18.02.1952, by determining compensation, and went further by directing for allotment of a plot of developed land measu.ring 2500 sq. yds. We have made it clear in the aforesaid appeal that the Land Acquisition Officer, through such an action, was not only acting beyond his mandate and c jurisdiction, but was also betraying the public trust reposed on him by virtue of being a public servant.

28. Pursuant to such an illegal award that we have held in the aforesaid appeal to be non est and void ab initio, the sub-awardees who are also Respondents in the present appeals made representations to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur for allotment of land. Unfortunately, the Trust not only complied with these representations but also drew up allotment plans, asking the Respondents to deposit money in lieu of the same.

29. Kamla Mehta, who is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 9162, claims to have paic; ,he full price for this reallotted plot on 17.12.1970. Dr. S.K. Sharma, who is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 9161, was initially allotted a plot no. 32 in the Lal Kathi Scheme by the Urban Improvement Trust and he had deposited the full amount of the plot on 31.3.1970. In the case of Pushpa Saxena, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 9158, she had purchased land measuring 400 sq. yards from one Usha Kumari vide an agreement to sell dated 7.7.72. The said Usha Kumari who had purchased the plot from the original Khatedar, one Narpat Singh, was allotted a plot no H-256 in the Lal Kathi Scheme vide allotment letter dated 13.9.1970.

30. The Respondents, in their Writ Petitions submitted A before the High Court of Rajasthan had complained that the said allotments were not being made expeditiously. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions holding inter alia that the actions of the appellants herein cannot be sustained and that once an allotment has been made by the Urban Improvement B Trust, the same cannot remain unfulfilled.

31. We heard the counsel for parties at length. Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the entire initiation of proceedings and passing C of the award under the Land Acquisition Act was a nullity. The learned counsel for the appellant based his argument on the contention that the Land Acquisition Officer had no authority or right to allot plots in addition to monetary compensation. It was also the submission of the appellant that the allotment of the plots in respect of the Respondents was cancelled and D possession was taken back. Therefore, according to the appellant, the High Court's decision to allow the claims of the Respondents on the basis of policy was erroneous as the High Court failed to appreciate that the policy of the State Government is inapplicable to the facts of these cases and E that such action allowing sub-awardees, nominees, dealers and even encroachers to obtain developed land at nominal rates, as opposed to the high market prices. On this count, the appellant also submitted that recognizing the claim of the Respondents would tantamount to recognizing the right of F dealers in land, since nearly all the original Khatedars have sold their anticipated allotment in favour of unscrupulous dealers.

32. The learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other G hand, submitted before us that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the proceedings that led to the cancellation of allotment in that the Respondents were not provided an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, it was the submission of the Respondent that the appellant was delivering possession to a number of other allottees who were similarly situated. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

33. It is amply clear from our decision in Civil Appeal No. 8590 of 2003 that the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as also the Award passed for acquisition of the land was a nullity and the subsequent action of the Government de-requisitioning land by issuance of Notification under Section 48 was just and proper as that was merely by way of rectification of the mistake committed therein. In the light of this decision, we find that the Respondents herein have no claim or right to a fresh allotment of land, as directed by the Land Acquisition Officer. That other allottees have been wrongly delivered possession by the appellant does c not, in any way, entitle the Respondents to claim the same benefit for a wrong action cannot be allowed to be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination, which is not at all applicable. Furthermore, it is important to note that none of the Respondents herein has been in possession of the said land allotted to them.

34. Moreover, this Court in Yadu Nandan Garg v. State ofRajasthan, reported at (1996) 1SCC334, on a case dealing with the lapse on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in wrongly granting a benefit to one party, has held that the benefit thus wrongly granted cannot entitle others to get the same or to press claims of invidious di · ::rimination.

35. In Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam, reported at (1994) 4 sec 370, at page 372, it was held by this Court that the power expressly given to the Land Acquisition Officer is only in respect of enquiry into the true area of the land acquired and determination of the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed to the acquired land and apportionment of the compensation among the claimants who appeared before him or persons known or believed to be interested in the land whether appeared or not and that it excludes by implication any other power other than that given to the Collector by Section 11. Seen in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present appeals, and from our (2010] 11 S.C.R. A decision in Civil Appeal No. 8590 of 2003, there is no doubt that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining compensation and allotting fresh plots of land to the Respondents is illegal and void ab initio.

36. Furthermore, it is settled law that sub-awardees and subsequent purchasers possess right vis-a-vis the original vendor only and not against the State Government as the purchases were subsequent to passing of the award. When the acquisition proceedings are itself a nullity, there clearly cannot be a valid claim to allotment as has been contended C by the Respondents in this case. In Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Dau/at Mal Jain, reported at (1997) 1 SCC 35, this Court has held at page 43 : "The diverse contentions give rise to the first question: whether the respondents have a right to allotment of the lands? It is an admitted position that they purchased the lands from Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner, pursuant to the sale deeds executed by him in 1970 or an agreement of sale etc. Their source of title, therefore, is Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner. The sales obviously are void since Chhote Lal had no right, title and interest in the land acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4( 1) issued on 29- 6-1960 and possession taken under Section 16 of the Central Act and equivalent to Section 16 of the State Act. The pre-existing right, title and interest had by Chhote Lal stood ceased and the same were vested in the appellant free from all encumbrances. The nomenclature of sub- awardees or nominees does not get elevated above the source and they had no right, title or interest under void sale except, if at all, only to claim compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. In Gian Chand v. Gopala this Court had held that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published, any encumbrances created by the owner of the land does not bind the Government. The agreement of sale, if any, was frustrated by the publication of the JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlifY v: MAHESfli 1029 SHARMA&. ANH. [DR. MUKtJNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] notification under· Section 4'(11') and' the declaration under A Section 6: In· Yadu Nandan Garg. v: State· ofH~ajasthan and a catena- of. other decisions, this Court has held' that the purchase after notification under Section 4(1) published· in the Gazette was not lawful' which did' not- clothe· the sale· with· any· colOL1r· of title as against the• State. All encumbrances stand· extinguished by·operation of Section, 1{yofthe Act. Therefore, the purchaser gets no title to the acquired land. The sale (being opposed• to the public policy} was void under. Section 23· of the Contract Act', 1~872~ Consequentially, the respondents.acquirect·no right\ c· title or interest either under. the· sale deeds. or· agreement· enterecfiinto by them with Chhote Lal, the erstwhile owner." 37:: So1far:·as,the,r~ponoe111ts7cfaimants; namely., P.ushpa1 Saxena1. K-amla Mehta: and: l!ln. S~ K .. Sharma: are· concerned; ttlere is no dlspute·to·the fact that theY;·purchased:a part of the 8 1 C!~quired· land! aftert the same· was; vested with· the State <Qovernment•under-the·Jagir1Act·and.after.the-Govemment.had: r~sumed! possession1 of• the· saidJ land! All the· aforesaid! ij.Urchases; were· in· any,1 case subsequent• to· the: notificatibni i~sued•by, the.state Government under-Section4 of. the: !!.and! P,;cq u isitiOn·Act: and• even ·after passing· ofithe award, so as; to, tf;lke advanta~ ofthe undue and·invalid'directionfor allotment> Qf·additional11and:by1 the·b.and•Acq~isition·Officer: 38; F?ushpaiSaxena1purchased ·herrland •from•USha,Kumari! vjde saletdeed dated;07.07..1972•and•the area of land which1 w.qs,purchaped1by, herwas:;only 400 sq: yards: Wsha! Kumarh l')ad •earllerrpurchased the,land'from .K11atedar; Narpat•Singhi litJe ·total ·area1of: land' of' Raja Narpat · Singh1thahwas,acqu ired1 \Yas,872<2Z,sqi y,ardswhereas,heiwas3givenian·area1 ot'plot· G\ ojf 1 \ POO isq; yards; as, an· alternative,plbtt. which1 its:elf1p:roves1 <l.tldiestabiishes, how.some>g~vernment'QfficeJs ;got1t0.getherr tQ;.give:l.ffidLie.:benefit·to.unSGrupulousperson and1were.thereby· teyjog;to:;O~UJSEtwrongfa I .loss ;to··the·government·of •their. assets: HI 39. There were many such awardees who were being given more land as an alternative to the area of the land which was sought to be acquired by issuing the notification under Section 4. There were 12 awardees who also entered into compromise and they were awarded plots of land in additional B to mandatory compensation as under: Name of the SI. No. Area of The area of No. Awardee of the Land plot to be Land (in sq. given in c yards) addition to cash compe- nsation as per the award 1. Sh. Radhuveer Singh 2. Sh. Ram Lal/Pokhermal 3. Sh. Raja Narpat Singh 36 872.22 4. Smt. Sharda Dhapar 5. Smt. Jyotsna Kumari 6. Sr. Tulsi Vishnoi 7. Sr. Rameshwari Sethi 8. Amrit Chain Kumari 9. Madhu and Vibhu Kashyap 10. Alok Prasad Mathur 500 – 11. B.P. Bhatnagar 40. Incidentally, Raja Narpat Singh who was the original H Khatedar and from whom Usha Kumari purchased land of JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1031 SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] which Pushpa Saxena purchased about 400 sq. yards, approached the Supreme Court but he himself was not allotted any plot of land whereas Pushpa Saxena, who purchased the land from Usha Kumari, is now seeking for allotment of alternative land at least to'the extent of 250 sq. yards. 41. In so far as the claim of Dr_. S.K. Sharma is concerned, his case is similar to that of Karma Mehta whose case is disposed by the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 2nd June, 2000. Dr. S.K. Sharma purchased the land from Rajendra Singh whose area of land that was acquired was 3508 sq. yards as against which there was an order for allotment of alternative land of an area of 2000 sq. yards. Kamla Mehta, out of the anticipated allotment of land measuring 1500 sq. yards in favour of Raghubir Singh, entered into an agreement for allotment of land meas1.,.1ring 375 sq. yards. She has lodged her claim on the hasis of documents like receipt and the alleged agreement to sale arid she put forth her request for allotment of land in her favour on the basis of such anticipated allotment. 42. The decision to allot alternative plot of land was given by the Land Acquisition Officer in the absence of any supporting law to support such claim on the ground of alleged rehabilitation of the person whose land is sought to be acquired by the Government. 43. Necessarily, none of the aforesaid awardees, namely, Pushpa Saxena, Kamla Mehta and Dr. S.K. Sharma falls into the aforesaid category. When they entered into the agreements to sale there was no allotment of land in favour of the vendors and there was just an anticipated and possiple action of allotment of some alternative land either to the vendors or the Khatedars from whom the vendors purchased through agreement to sell. While ordering for allotment of land in favour of such persons the concerned officers misused their position and the trust reposed on them. In any case, as of now, there · ,,,,r._,,, ….. -. __ .. : .~:· · -··d ~:: ;:'~- · ·:-· __ :,r"i:- A is neither vacant land available in the Lal Kothi area nor are,· any' of the aforesaid • respondents-claima~ts is entitled to . allotment of any alternative land: '~- :.,. . · . ;._·: '>. , • 4/ In.the li~h ~ ofthe ~fo;e~aid d~~i~;b~~!~j this Co~rt. and our discussion in Civil Appeal 8590 of 2003, we find that 8 . the cases of. the Respondents are devoid of any merit.· We, , therefore, hold that the directions for payment of compensation and allotment of land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition. Act to the Respondents are illegal and without jurisdiction as~ the award 'passed by1he land acquisition officer was only ari: C offer· which itself.was a' nullity. They are not entitled to an~ allotment of 250 sq. ·yards of plot, for any direction to allot such• plot of land could amount to unjust enrichment of a person who' ·· had sought to bind the Government, although, in law no such blnding effect came into existence as the' land already vested , D in the Government. If any one of them has paid the ch~rges for allotment of alternative land they can only get ba'ck th'e'same, from the competent authority, in which case, they shall be paid, . , interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a' from the date of the deposit of the amount till the date of the payment. , ·E-. ,:,. . .:-,- .. :t •. · -"- .,., – · D.G … · Appeals disposed of. -' ' . -~ . • . —· – ~-' i _·, ;–/,. -. ,: -" -; ~ – – • j( ~ ~ ·' ' – ' . ·{- .. ~ ·-' ,·,. — ' ·-. : _; _ .] -= • c' ,_ , '~ — ' ' – -"·