Holding

Acquisition proceedings and the award for land already vested in the State under the Jagirs Act are nullities; the directions for compensation and allotment are illegal and set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas that had been vested in the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) had later issued acquisition notifications under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining compensation and directing allotment of a 2,500‑sq‑yd plot to the respondent, who was the priest‑manager of a temple. The Court held that once land is vested in the State, it cannot be subject to acquisition proceedings; consequently the notifications, award and directions for compensation and allotment were void ab initio. The Court set aside the orders directing payment of compensation and allotment, affirmed the de‑requisition under Section 48 as a rectification, and allowed the JDA’s appeal. The Court also ruled that sub‑awardees have no right to claim alternative land or compensation because the acquisition itself was a nullity.

Issues considered

The land acquired under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was already vested in the Government under the Jagirs Act; can acquisition proceedings be lawfully initiated?
Are the acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer void ab initio?
Does the Land Acquisition Officer have authority to direct allotment of alternative land in addition to monetary compensation?
Do sub‑awardees or subsequent purchasers have any right to claim allotment or compensation when the acquisition is a nullity?
Is the de‑requisition of the land under Section 48 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act a proper remedy?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953s. 11, s. 23, s. 26, s. 31, s. 4, s. 48, s. 6
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952

Subjects

land acquisitiongovernment landJagirs Actnullitycompensationallotmentpublic trustabuse of powerSection 48administrative law

Judgment

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1002

A JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
V.
MAHESH SHARMA & ANR.
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8590 OF 2003)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

Land Acquisition: Resumption of land on enactment of
C Jagirs Act - Land acquisition proceedings in respect of such
land - Held: The land became government land after
resumption and, therefore, cannot be subjected to land
acquisition proceeding - The action on the part of Land
Acquisition Officer in directing the payment of compensation
o and also allotting an alternative plot of land to the original
owners indicate that the Government officials abused their
power and trust under the camouflage of performance of their
public duty - Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of
Jagirs Act, 1952 - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 -
E s. 48 - Administration law - Public authority

Trust: Land belonging to ldol/'Dev' statue - Records
showing idol as jagirdar - Resumption of the land on
enactment of Jagirs Act - Priest of the temple receiving the
compensation showing himself as jagirdar - Held: Trustee
F abused his position and sought to fritter away a property
belonging to the idol for his self interest and self gain -
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act,
1952.

G Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Wrong action
cannot be allowed to perpetuate on the ground of
discrimination - Thus, wrongful benefits to some persons
would not entitle others to claim the same benefit - Land
Acquisition.
H 1002
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1003
SHARMA & ANR.

In C.A. No.8590 of 2003, the land measuring 29 A
Bighas and 17 Biswas was under the occupation of the
idol of which the predecessor-in-interest of respondent
no.1 was a manager being the sole priest of the temple.
The said land was resumed by the Government on the
enactment of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and B
Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The priest of the temple
received the compensation from the Jagir Commissioner.
Despite vesting and resumption of the land, the
acquisition notification was issued under the Rajasthan
Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (LA Act) and an award was c
·passed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the
compensation of the land and also recommending an
allotment of plot of land.

The State Government held that the land acquisition
proceeding was a nullity and issued an order de- D
acquiring the land under section 48 of the LA Act. The
respondent filed a writ petition challenging the same. The
High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the
notification issued under section 48 of the LA Act. An SLP
filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Subsequently, the E
respondent filed a fresh writ petition for contempt of court
in view of alleged non-compliance of the order of the High
Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but
held that it cannot enter into a controversy so as to find
out whether the award was a nullity once the said order F
had attained its finality upto the Supreme Court and,
therefore, the direction was issued to the appellant to
carry out the order. The appeal was filed challenging the
order of the High Court.
G
In Civil appeal no.9158 etc., the land acquisition
proceedings were initiated in respect of the land which
was already vested with the Government after coming into
force of Jagirs Act. The land acquisition officer passed

H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A an award of compensation and directed for allotment of
plot of the land. Pursuant to such award, the
respondents-sub-awardees made representations to the
Urban Improvement Trust for the allotment of land. The
Trust allowed the representations and also drew up
s allotment plans, asking the sub-awardees to deposit
money in lieu of the same. The sub-awardees claimed to
have paid the price for the allotted plot. However,
allotments were not made. The sub-awardees filed writ
petitions. The High Court allowed the writ petitions
c holding that the action of the appellant cannot be
sustained and that once an allotment was made by the
Trust, the same cannot remain unfulfilled. The appeal was
filed challenging the order of the High Court.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
D
HELD:

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8590 OF 2003

1.1. The entire land of 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas stood
E in the name of the Government and was shown as
Government land in the Jamabandi for the period
between 1958 to 1977. That entry came to be entered into
in view of the promulgation of the Rajasthan Land
Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 w.e.f.
F 18.02.1952 and was fortified by the resumption of the
entire land effective from 01.08.1960. A bare perusal of the
order of the Jagir Commissioner established that a sum
of Rs. 2250/- was sanctioned as interim compensation
and rehabilitation grant payable to the predecessor-in-
G interest of respondent no.1 under Section 36 of the Jagirs
Act. There could have been a mistake in describing the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1 as Jagirdar as
the land belonged to the Idol/Dev statue and the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1 was only a
H priest of the said temple. This fact was established even
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1005
SHARMA & ANR.

by the application filed before the Jagir Commissioner by A
showing him as the Pujari and Manager and showing the
Idol as the Jagirdar. The Land Acquisition Officer
proceeded to pass an award in respect of the land, which
already belonged to the Government, by determining
compensation, and proceeded further in directing B
retention of interim compensation paid under Jagirs Act
and also by directing the allotment of a plot of developed
land measuring 2500 sq. yds. Although there was no law
supporting such action, the said action on the part of the
Land Acquisition Officer directing the payment of c
compensation and also allotting a plot of land in favour
of the respondent would indicate as to how Government
officials, who are protectors of the Government property,
abuse their power and trust under the camouflage of
performance of their public duty. If on the one hand, a 0
Government officer of the status of Land Acquisition
Officer, who is entrusted with a public authority while
performing a public duty has sought to make an illegal
acquisition of land and also to make illegal allotment of
land, on the other hand it is a trustee and the Manager
who has abused his position and has, betraying the trust E
reposed on him, sought to fritter away a property
belonging to the Idol for his self-interest and self-gain.
[Paras 15, 16] [1016-G-H; 1017-A-C; G-H; 1018-A-D]

Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Dau/at Mal F
Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35; Narpat Singh & others v. Jaipur
Development Authority & Another (2002) 4 SCC 666; Jaipur
Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam (1994) 4 SCC 370;
State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma 1995 Supp (3) SCC
249; Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362; G
Collect of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Ors.
(1955) 1 SCR 1311; Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan
& Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 117; State of Jammu & Kashmir v.
Sanahullah Mir (1980) 3 SCR 281 - relied on.
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.

A 1.2. 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·
the land by issuance of notification under Section 48 w~s
B just and proper as that was an action for rectification of
the mistake. 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
c of this nature. 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 was a nullity.
0
Payment made to the predecessor-in-interest of
respondent no. 1 and also to the respondent no. 1 as its
successor is also 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
E directing for payment of compensation and withdrawal of
the compensation by respondent no.1 are held to be
illegal and without jurisdiction and are set aside. [Para 24]
(1023-D-H; 1024-A-B]

F CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9158 OF 2003

2.1. Initiation of the acquisition proceedings as also
award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is nullity
in the eyes of law and void ab initio. The Land Acquisition
G Officer, through such an action, was not only acting
beyond his mandate and jurisdiction, but was also
betraying the public trust reposed on him by virtue of
being a public servant. The sub-awardees have no claim
or right to a fresh allotment of land as directed by the
Land Acquisition Officer. The fact that the other allottees
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1007
SHARMA & ANR.

were wrongly delivered possession by the appellant, A
would not entitle the respondents to claim the same
benefit, for a wrong action cannot be allowed to
perpetuate on the ground of discrimination, which is not
at all applicable. Furthermore, none of the respondents
were in possession of the said land allotted to them. B
[Paras 27, 33] [1025-A-C; 1027-A-D]

Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 11 SCC
334 - relied on. ·

2.2. Sub-awardees and subsequent purchasers C
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. [Para 36] [1028-B-C] D

Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Dau/at Mal Jain
(1997) 1 sec 35 - relied on.

2.3. There were many such awardees who were being
given more· land as an alternative to the area of the land E
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 addition to mandatory
compensation. The decision to allot alternative plot of F
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 was sought to be acquired by the Government.
Necessarily, none of the awardees fell into the said G
category. When they entered into the agreements of sale,
there was no allotment of land in favour of the vendors
and there was just an anticipated and possible action of
allotment of some alternative land either to the vendors
or the Khatedars from whom the vendors purchased H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A 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. If
any one of them has paid the charges for allotment of
alternative land they can only get back the same from the
B 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. [Paras 39, 42,
43, 44) [1030-A-B; 1031-E-H; 1032-D-E]

Case Law Reference:
c
(1994) 4 sec 310 relied on Para 9
(1997) 1 sec 35 relied on Para 9-
(2002) 4 sec 666 relied on Para 9
D
1995 Supp (3) sec 249 relied on Para 20
(2004) 1 sec 362 relied on Para 21
(1955) 1 SCR 1311 relied on Para 21
E (1955) 1 SCR 117 relied on Para22
(1980) 3 SCR 281 relied on Para 23
(1997) 1 sec 35 relied on Para 34

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8590 of 2003.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2002 of the
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 4469 of 2002.
G
WITH
C.A. Nos. 9158, 9161 & 9162 of 2003.

S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellant.
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1009
SHARMA & ANR.

Pallav Shishodia, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Mitink Kumar, A
Pratap Venugopal, Asha G. Nair, K.J. John & Co., A.S.
Bhasme, Devanshu Kumar Devesh, Milind Kumar, P.K.
Manohar, Sandeep Narain, Shri Narain, S. Narain & Co., for
the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. We propose to
dispose of these appeals together since the issues in these
matters are interconnected.
c
2. A narration of the facts leading to the filing of the present
appeal would indicate as to how money and land of the
Government has been squandered away by some of the
Government officials of Jaipur by joining hand with certain
private parties. The facts of the present casewould also reflect D
how unscrupulous and adventurous people in connivance with
bureaucrats and persons in power have not only sought to
give undue advantage of giving compensation for land but
also sought to grab valuable lands causing willful loss to the
Government exchequer and gain unto themselves. Facts of E
the present case appropriately reflects the earlier observations
of this court in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Dau/at
Mal Jain, reported at ( 1997) 1 sec 35 where•in it was stated
that public policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of power
and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for
F
the performance of public duty and an illegal allotment of land
founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made
to some other persons wrongly would not form a legal premise
to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such
illegal order nor would it be legalized.
G
3. These points find close imitation in the facts of this
case, which we may briefly narrate here. This appeal arises
out of an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in a
contempt petition filed against the appellant; Jaipur
H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.

A Development Authority, for failure to comply with an order of
the High Court of Rajasthan passed in 1984 to award the
respondent not only compensation for the land acquired but
also directing for allotment of a plot of developed land
admeasuring 2500 sq. yards. On 18.02.1952, the Rajasthan
B Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act (hereinafter "Jagir
Act" for short) came into force whereby all Jagir lands from the
commencement of the Act was made liable to payment of
land revenue to the Government. With the coming into force of
the aforesaid Act, land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas
c under the occupation of Idol of which Mahant Ram Narain was
the Manager, being the sole priest of the temple, also vested
with the Government. The said land measuring 29 Bighas and
17 Biswas was resumed by the Government effective from
01.08.1960. A Notification, however, was issued under Section
4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter "the
0
Act" for short), which was published in the Rajasthan Gazatte
on 09.06.1960, to acquire 552 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land
in village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura Tehsil Jaipur.
The land which was sought to be acquired under this Notification
E also included the aforesaid 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas of land,
which is included in Khasra Nos. 257, 258, and 259, which
was popularly known as Lal Kathi scheme, which is adjacent
to Jaipur city for a planned development of the city. On
03.05.1961, a Notification under Section 6 of the Rajasthan
Land Acquisition Act came to be published in the Rajasthan
F Gazette for the s~me area of land. The sole priest of the temple
submitted a statement of his claim on 16.09.1965 for payment
of compensation by treating his Maufi rental income of Rs.
1,000/-· before the Jagir Commissioner. An order was passed
on 17.10.1968 by the Jagir Commissioner sanctioning the
G payment of a sum of Rs. 2250/- as interim compensation and
rehabilitation grant payable to the Jagirdar Mahant Ram Narain
under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and
Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The aforesaid compensation
was received by Jagirdar Mahant Ram Narain on 29.10.1968
H as interim compensation under the Jagir Act.
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1011
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

4. Despite the aforesaid fact of vesting of the land on the A
State Government by virtue of the provisions of Jagir Act and
despite the payment of interim compensation under Jagir Act,
an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on
29.04.1971, determining a sum of Rs. 2,62,680/- as
compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the land. Surprisingly B
and rather peculiarly, the Land Acquisition Officer apart from
determining the compensation for the land, also recommended
allotment of developed plot of land measuring 2,500 sq. yds.
to be given to the respondent. The Government of Rajasthan
taking the stand that the aforesaid issuance of notifications c
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as also passing of the
Award on 29.04.1971 was a nullity, issued an order dated
26.09.1973 deacquiring the land under Section 48 of the
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act stating therein that the
possession of the land in question stood resumed on the day D
under the Jagir Act. On 27 .11.1973, the Land Acquisition
Officer moved an application for withdrawal of reference on
the ground that the land already stood deacquired, consequent
upon which the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dismissed the
reference on 14.05.1974 as withdrawn. The respondent seems
to have been aggrieved by the aforesaid order and accordingly E
preferred an application on 06.09.197 4 before the Land
Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation amount, which
was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer holding inter a/ia
that since the land stood resumed under the Jagir Act there is
no question of payment of compensation. F

5. The Government officials.adopted the stand that the
land was Government land after its vesting with the Government
under the provisions of the Jagir Act. The said position was
also fortified by entry made in the Memo of Entries (Jamabandi) G
of village Bhojpura Tehsil, Jaipur District, Jaipur, wherein the
entire land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas was shown
with Khasra numbers as government land and the said land
stood as Government land for the period between Samvat
2015 to 2034 which is years 1958 to 1977. The aforesaid H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A jamabandi entries, therefore, clearly indicate the land in the
revenue record was recorded as Government land during the
period from 1958 to 1977. But despite the said fact, a
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for
acquiring the land by the State Government followed by a
B Notification under Section 6 of the Act. Further, not only did an
award come to be passed on 29.04.1971 by the Land
Acquisition Officer determining a sum of Rs. 2,62,680/- as
compensation in lieu of the acquired land, but the Land
Acquisition Officer also recommended the allotment of
C additional land measuring 2500 sq. yds. of developed land to
be given to the respondent.

6. The respondent being aggrieved by the issuance of
the aforesaid Notification by the Government under Section
48 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act preferred a writ
D petition before the Rajasthan High Court praying for the
quashing and setting aside of the Notification dated 26.09.1973
with a further prayer to direct the appellant herein to make
immediate payment of an amount of Rs. 2,62,680/- awarded
under the award dated 29.04.1971 and also to allot the land
E measuring 2500 sq. yds in compliance of the award. The said
writ petition was heard by the learned single Judge of the High
Court, who allowed the writ petition filed by Mahant Ram Narain
and pursued by his son, the present respondent No. 1 as Ram
Narain himself expired before the judgment was pronounced.
F The High Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the
Notification issued by the State Government under Section 48
of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act with a further direction
to the State Government to deposit the compensation amount
in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur within three months and
G also to allot a plot of land of 2500 sq. yds.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein
preferred a DB Civil Special Appeal before the Division Bench
of the High Court of Rajasthan contending inter alia that the
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1013
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

land acquisition proceedings were void ab initio as the land A
had already vested in the State and therefore, no benefit could
be granted to the respondent under illegal and void
proceedings, particularly when the entire land acquisition
proceedings was a nullity. It was also contended before the
Division Bench of the High Court that the predecessor-in- B
interest of the respondent had accepted the interim
compensation under the Jagir Act, which indicates that he
explicitly admitted resumption of the land, and therefore, there
was no occasion to take possession under the Land Acquisition
Act. The Division Bench of the High Court admitted the appeal c
filed by the appellant herein but ultimately dismissed the said
appeal on 06.02.1996 on the ground that the State had failed
to take necessary steps. On 17.04.2002, an application for
recalling the order dated 06.02.1996 was filed and the High
Court dismissed the matter holding inter alia that the
0
application was pending for last six years. As against the
aforesaid order a special leave to appeal petition was filed in
this Court, which was also dismissed on 11.10.2002.

8. It appears thereafter the respondent preferred a fresh
petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the E
Constitution on 22.07.2002 for contempt of court in view of the
alleged non-compliance of the order passed by the High Court.
On 27.11.2002, the Division Bench of the High Court took up
the aforesaid writ petition and rejected the same.
F
9. The contention of the appellant before the High Court
was that the order dated 27 .11.2002 was non est and a nullity.
Before the High Court it was also stated by the appellant that
not only was the initiation of the acquisition proceedings by
issuance of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the G
Land Acquisition Act a nullity, but even the passing of the
award was also a nullity. In support of the contentions, reliance
was placed on the decisions of this Court in Jaipur
Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam, reported at (1994)
4 SCC 370 and Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v.
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A Dau/at Mal Jain, reported at (1997) 1 SCC 35, as also the
case of Narpat Singh & others vs. Jaipur Development
Authority & Another reported at (2002) 4 SCC 666.

10. The Division Bench, however, by the impugned order
B dated 27 .11.2002, held that the Division Bench cannot enter
into a controversy so as to find out whether the order dated
17.05.1984 is a nullity once the order dated 17.05.1984 has
attained its finality upto the Supreme Court, and therefore, a
direction was issued to the appellant herein to carry out the
order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
C 27.11.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
the appellant preferred the present Special Leave Petition in
which initially a notice was issued and an interim order was
passed staying the operation of the impugned order. However,
an order came to be passed on 03.11.2003 by this Court
D granting leave and also making interim order absolute till the
disposal of the appeal. It was, however, ordered by this Court
in the same order dated 03.11.2003 that the amount awarded
would be deposited before the Registrar of the High Court
within a period of four weeks and that the same would be
E permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents on furnishing
security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High court.
Now the appeal being ready in all respects was listed for
hearing and in the light of the aforesaid background facts we
heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this
F appeal but none appeared for the respondent despite the
matter being heard on several dates.

11 Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted before us that the land measuring 29
G Bighas and 17 Biswas having been vested with the
Government, and with the legislation and enforcement of the
Jagir Act the said land having been resumed, and there being
a case of resumption of the entire land by the Government
effective from 01.08.1960, there could not have been any
H. notification under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1015
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

Act seeking to acquire land belong to the Government itself, A
and therefore, entire initiation of the proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act and passing of the award under the Land
Acquisition Act was a nullity. It was also submitted by him that
the land in question belonged to the Idol and not to Ram Narain,
who was only a Mahant being the sole priest of the temple and B
therefore passing of the Award of compensation in favour of
Ram Narain, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was
not only illegal, but also a nullity, and therefore, even on that
ground the award is non est in the eyes of law. His further
submission was that in any case the order passed by the c
Land Acquisition Officer directing allotment of land measuring
2500 sq. yds. in favour of Ram Narain was void ab initio and
that the aforesaid directions of the Land Acquisition Officer
were contrary to and unknown to the law of the land. He also
drew our attention to an agreement dated 21.04.2001, copy of D
which is placed on record, whereby the respondent no. 1 herein
had entered into an agreement for the development of land
measuring 3 Bighas and 15 Biswas covered by Khasra No.
130 with Messrs Ganpati Royal Estate, who is described as
partner/purchaser. In the said agreement, it was stated by the
respondent no. 1 that the aforesaid property is entered in the E
revenue record and papers in the name of father of first party
Shri Ram Narayan Sharma and consequent u'pon his death,
the owner of the aforesaid land, proprietor is first party and
land owner. It was further stated in the said agreement that the
aforesaid land is under acquisition proceeding initiated by the F
Government of Rajasthan but no award or compensation has
yet been paid to the land owner - respondent for which litigation
is pending, and therefore, the agreement is being executed
for development of the aforesaid land under the said
agreement. G

12. Our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant to a Circular dated 13.12.1991,
which was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Admn., Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Deputy Director, Bikaner, Settlement H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A Commissioner, Jaipur. The subject of the said Circular
described the Entry of the name of Pujari along with Mandir
Dev Statue for khatedari of land. In the said Circular, it was
stated that the question has been raised time and again that
when such Mandirs which have their personal lands, whether
B the name of the Pujari should be entered in the revenue records
(Jamabandi) along with the Idol (Dev Statue). In paragraph 3
of the said Circular, it was also clarified that the right position
is that the name of the Pujari or Shiwayat should not be
mentioned in the Jamabandi.
c 13. In view of the aforesaid position and for the protection
of the Dev statue and in order to check the unwarranted
litigation relating to the land of the Dev statue, it was decided
that in the Jamabandi to be prepared by the Revenue
Department or by the Settlement Department in future, the
D name of Pujari will not be mentioned along with the name of
the Dev statue. Another direction which was issued was that
in Jamabandis which have been prepared and presently in
force, the name of Pujari wherever it occurs alongwith name
of Dev statue be struck off and be mentioned in the aforesaid
E register. It was also informed under the aforesaid Circular that
the aforesaid directions shall come into force with immediate
effect.

14. During the course of his arguments, the learned counsel
F appearing for the appellant relied upon the copy of Jamabandi
for the period between 1958 to 1977, wherein the entire 29
Bighas and 17 Biswas of land was shown to have been
registered as Government land in the Jamabandi.

15. The facts of the present case, which we have delineated
G at length, clearly disclose that the entire land of 29 Bighas and
17 Biswas stood in the name of the Government and has
been shown as Government land in the Jamabandi for the
period between 1958 to 1977. That entry came to be entered
into in view of the promulgation of the Jagir Act w.e.f.
H 18.02.1952 and was fortified by the resumption of the entire
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1017
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

land effective from 01.08.1960. The order of the Jagir A
Commissioner dated 17.10.1968 is also placed on record. A
bare perusal of the said order proves and establishes that a
sum of Rs. 2250/- was sanctioned as interim compensation
and rehabilitation grant payable to the Jagirdar Ram Narain
under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and B
Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. There could have been a
mistake in describing Ram Narain as Jagirdar as the land
belonged to the Idol/Dev statue and Ram Narain being only a
priest of the said temple. Such description of Ram Narain as
Jagirdar was also not in tune with the circular dated 13.12.1991. c
This fact gets established even by the application filed before
' the Jagir Commissioner by showing Ram Narain as the Pujari
and Manager and showing the Idol as the Jagirdar. In
paragraph 1 of the said application filed by the predecessor-
in-interest of respondent no. 1 herein, it was clearly stated that D
there is a temple with an Idol of Lord Hanuman Ji in which
Ram Narain is the only Pujari and Manager. He had stated in
the said application that with the vesting and resumption of the
land, he is entitled to get compensation under Section 22 of
the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, which should
E
be paid to him. Pursuant to the same, order for interim
compensation was made by the Jagir Commissioner,
Rajasthan. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 1
received the interim compensation thereunder without any
protest and demur. Consequently, he was, at the most, entitled
to receive balance compensation under the Jagir Act. F

16. Despite vesting of the land with the Government under
the provisions of the Jagir Act and also resumption of the said
land measuring 29 Bighas and 17 Biswas by the Government,
a notification proposing acquisition of the said land was issued G
by the Government under Section 4(1) of the Act followed by
the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition
Officer even proceeded to pass an award in respect of the
iand, which already belonged to the Government, by
determining compensation, and proceeded further in directing H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.

A retention of interim compensation paid under Jagir Act and
also by directing the allotment of a plot of developed land
measuring 2500 sq. yds. Although there was no law supporting
such action, the said action on the part of the Land Acquisition
Officer directing the payment of compensation and also
B allotting a plot of land in favour of the respondent indicates as
to how Government officials, who are protectors of the
Government property, abuse their power and trust under the
camouflage of performance of their public duty. The respondent
no. 1 entering into a private agreement describing himself as
c the owner of the land is in itself a disclosure as to how property
belonging to an Idol is being frittered away by a trustee who
is a Manager for promoting his self interest and self gain. If on
the one hand, a Government officer of the status of Land
Acquisition Officer, who is entrusted with a public authority
while performing a public duty has sought to make an illegal
0
acquisition of land and also making illegal allotment of land,
on the other hand it is a trustee and the Manager who has
abused his position and has, following the trust reposed on
him, sought to fritter away a property belonging to the Idol.

E 17. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge while hearing
the first writ petition completely ignored the aforesaid position
and instead issued a direction for not only for retaining payment
of the interim compensation under the Jagir Act but also
ordered for payment of compensation under the Land
F Acquisition Act along with interest, but also upheld the order
of allotment of additional land. The Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed therefrom on the ground that
the appellant has failed to take appropriate steps. The special
leave petition by this Court was dismissed for non-prosecution
G as the appellant failed to take steps in the appeal. In the
subsequent writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court
by the impugned order directed for payment of compensation,
totally ignoring the contention of the appellant that such an
order is a nullity in the eyes of law which submission was
H enforced by at least three decisions of this Court.
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1019
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

18. In Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam, A
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 8
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. It was also held in the said C
decision that the award is only an offer made after consideration
of the above matters and is only made subsequent to reference
and determination made under sub-section ( 1) of Section 23
of the amounts awardable thereunder or any other amount
awarded under any or all other clauses thereunder including D
sub-section (2). Subsequently, an award shall be made by
court and such award by operation of sub-section (2) of Section
26 would be deemed to be a decree. In Para 7, this Court laid
down that a reading of sub-section (4) of Section 31 indicates
that the Land Acquisition Officer has no power or jurisdiction
to give any land under acquisition or any other land in lieu of E
compensation. The contention of the learned counsel for the
claimants was that while awarding compensation, the Collector
(Land Acquisition Officer) has a higher power than the limited
power given under sub-section (3) of Section 31. It was held
that such a position is not tenable, and would run counter to F
the scheme envisaged in the Act and such interpretation, if
accepted would result in defeating the public purpose. This
Court clearly held in the said decision 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 and that the decree
cannot incorporate any matter other than the matters
determined under Section 11 or those referred to and
determined under Section 18 and no other.
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.

A 19. The subsequent decision of this Court in Secy., Jaipur
Development Authority v. Dau/at Mal Jain, reported at (1997)
1 sec 35 is almost to the same effect. In the said decision,
this Court has laid down almost to the same extent while
interpreted the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition
8 Act, 1953. This Court held in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 as
under:

"11 .......... In a democratic society governed by rule of
law, power is conferred on the holder of the public office
or the authority concerned by the Constitution by virtue of
c appointment. The holder of the office, therefore, gets
. opportunity to abuse or misuse the office. The politician
who holds public office must perform public duties with the
sense of purpose, and a sense of direction, under rules
or sense of priorities. The purpose must be genuine in a
0 free democratic society governed by the rule of law to
.further socio-economic democracy. The Executive
Government should frame its policies to maintain the social
order, stability, progress and morality. All actions of the
Government are performed through/by individual persons
E in collective or joint or individual capacity. Therefore, they
should morally be responsible for their actions.

12 ......... The Government acts through its bureaucrats,
who shape its social, economic and administrative policies
to further the social stability and progress socially,
F economically and politically. Actions of the Government,
should be accounted for social morality. Therefore, the
actions of the individuals would reflect on the actions of the
Government. The actions are intended to further the goals
set down in the Constitution, the laws or administrative
G policy. The action would, therefore, bear necessary integral
connection between the 'purpose' and the end object of
public welfare and not personal gain. The action cannot be
divorced from that of the individual actor. The end is
something aimed at and only individuals can have and
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAHESH 1021
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

shape the aims to further the social, economic and political A
goals. The ministerial responsibility thereat comes into
consideration ........ .

13. All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility
can be attached are actions performed by individual B
persons composing the department. All government
actions, therefore, means actions performed by individual
persons to further the objectives set down in the
Constitution, the laws and the administrative policies to
develop democratic traditions, social and economic C
democracy set down in the Preamble, Part Ill and Part IV
of the Constitution. The intention behind the government
actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and
the national interest. Public good is synonymous with
protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit
or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public D
policies. The limitations of the policies are kept along with
the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or
abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal
gain or for illegal gratification."
E
What the Court has said in paragraphs 14 and 15, have
been extracted right at the beginning of this Judgment.

20. In State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, reported at
1995 Supp (3) SCC 249, this Court has held that the Land
F
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 G
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 H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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:
0
"........................... 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
E 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
G 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
H land had been resumed long ago. It belonged to the State.
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1023
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

The whole proceeding of land acquisition was a nullity. The A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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, G
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 H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

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
8 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
F 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 A
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 B
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 D
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. E

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 F
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 G
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
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

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.
H
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MAH ESH 1027
SHARMA & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

33. It is amply clear from our decision in Civil Appeal No. A
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 B
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (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
8
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:
D 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
E 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.
F 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
G
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
H
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 B
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;
1
ttlere is no dlspute·to·the fact that theY;·purchased:a part of the 8
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! E
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! F ·
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·area 1 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
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A 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:

S. 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
D award
1. Sh. Radhuveer Singh 50 1361 1500
2. Sh. Ram Lal/Pokhermal 27 2108 2000
3. Sh. Raja Narpat Singh 36 872.22 1000
E
4. Smt. Sharda Dhapar 54 1097 1000
5. Smt. Jyotsna Kumari 28 2089 2000
6. Sr. Tulsi Vishnoi 48 2166 2000

F 7. Sr. Rameshwari Sethi 33 2658 2000
8. Amrit Chain Kumari 29 2089 2000
9. Madhu and Vibhu 60 2166 2000
.
Kashyap
G 10. Alok Prasad Mathur 52 298 500
I
-
11. B.P. Bhatnagar 500 .

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, A
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.
' Dr_. S.K. Sharma is concerned,
41. In so far as the claim of B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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, F
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 G
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
H
;;,, . --------- - -------'-----

1032 '' SUPREME COURT REPORTS ; (2010] 11 S.C.R.
t
'f
· ,,,,r._,,, . . . -. __ .: .~:· · -··d ~:: ;:'~- · ·:-·__ :,r"i:-
I >... ·~'°'.'I
1' - . , (2010] 11 S.C.R. 1033
I
;
A is neither vacant land available in the Lal Kothi area nor are,· i.
any' of the aforesaid • respondents-claima~ts is entitled to . 'I SANJEETA DAS A
allotment of any alternative land: · '~- :.,. . · . ;._·: '>. , • f v.
'"~
''' TAPAN KUMARMOHANTY
4/ In.the li~h ~ ofthe ~fo;e~aid d~~i~;b~~!~j this Co~rt.
0 1
.· ·- '(Civil Appeal Nos.8196-8197of 2010) ·
and our discussion in Civil Appeal 8590 of 2003, we find that l
I
(. ; :·· ;· .• ·, .. - - ! ', .___. ' 1' i '~-- ; . : :__ ' '. . •'
8 .. . .'\.· .·"•, ,SEP,TE.MBE~,22,,2010 -:---...._~ · . , ·'''' B
. the cases of. the Respondents are devoid of any merit.· We, ''
, therefore, hold that the directions for payment of compensation l ' '• · [AFTAB ALAM.AND R.M: LODHA, JJ.] '
' •_·• *.:~:-_,;·--·:····- ,;,:~~ ... -~·: ;• :--•;- <• .. ·.~"\·~-;
and allotment of land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition. l c

Act to the Respondents are illegal and without jurisdiction as~
t Hi~du Marriage ;.:ct. 19S5 .:... ss, 13 ahd 1JB ~ Df~~~lution
the award 'passed by1he land acquisition officer was only ari: ! of marriage - Consent of parties -·Relevance of - Husband
C offer· which itself.was a' nullity. They are not entitled to an~ t
seeking divorce..-; Family Court directed wife to resume co- C
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' ~I habitation. with the husband - Husband filed appeal; and in
the .appeal (iied affida_vit .declaring his willingness to pay
(
·· had sought to bind the Government, although, in law no such specified sum in consideration for grarit of divorce."'." High
blnding effect came into existence as the' land already vested , 't• Court paraphrased· the statement made in the affidavit and
(
D in the Government. If any one of them has paid the ch~rges for made it the order of the court while decreeing divorce - D
I,
allotment of alternative land they can only get ba'ck th'e'same, Decree challenged by wife - Husband contended that the
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 t
'
I
divorce decree could not be set aside since it was' passed with
the consent of the parties - Held: A Hindu marriage can be
the amount till the date of the payment. , I dissolved only on any of the grounds plainly and clearly·
·E-. ,:,. . .:-,- ..:t •. · -"- .,., - . - - .
}
· D.G ... · Appeals disposed of. I
enumerated uls: 13 - The law does not permit the purchase E
• of a decree of divorce ·for consideration,> with or without the
-' ' . -~ . . ·{- ' -
l consent of the other side.- No court can assume jurisdiction
.. ~ ·-'
l to dissolve a Hindu m(!rriage simply on the basis. of. the
l consent of the parties", de hors the grounds enumerated ul
s. 13, 'unless the consenting parties proceed ·!1/~."138 - 9n
;--/,. - ~:
-. ,:
,·,. l facts, in "any event, there is nothing to indicate. that the divorc~
F,
•
- ' . --- ' l decree was passed with the consent of the parties -, Order of
·-. : _; _.] -=
} High Court accordingly set a'side .:.·High Court directed to
hear and dispose of. the matter afresh. , ' ··· ·
1,' • ';, ,:.·, ~::-~·.• '-.:._'. ;.- :. _- .• ~ . -,· .--·.- :'-~:. • .• :., ·; •. c G
.• c' ',_ - •'
' · ·_ . .The respondent-husband filed a petition before the
Fa~ily· court· 'under ,sectiol)s 13(1 )(ia) and (ib) of the
,

-; ~ - - .
, '~ --- '
' - - "·
l Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of his marriage
on 'uie g'rounds of cruelty and, desertion. The Family
{
• . ---· - • ~-' i _·, : - -"
• j( ~ ' ~ ·' ' - ' -

Court directedthe appellant-wife to resume cohabitation
.. . . ' . . 1033 . H

{