Land Acquisition Officer, Housing Board, Jaipur v. Jeevan Son Of Late

Judgment

1. Jeevan Son Of Late Shri Chotu, Resident Of Gram Sukhalpura, Mansarover Sector No. 3 At Present Resident Of Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur.

3. Gopal Son Of Late Shri Chotu, (Deceased) Through Lrs- Smt. Galkhu Devi Wife Of Late Mohru, (Died During Reference Proceeding Name Deleted On 29-08-2022).

4. Shanti Choudhary Daughter Of Late Mohru, Resident Of Gram Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

5. Ram Narayan Choudhary Son Of Late Mohru, Resident Of Gram Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

6. Smt Badam Devi Wife Of Alte Shri Gopal, Resident Of 31, Nand Vihar, Bargon Ka Bad, Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

7. Ghanshyam Choudhary Son Of Late Shri Gopal, Resident Of 31, Nand Vihar, Bargon Ka Bad, Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

8. Mahendra Choudhary Son Of Late Shri Gopal, Resident Of 31, Nand Vihar, Bargon Ka Bad, Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

9. Smt. Lali Devi Daughter Of Late Gopal Wife Of Shri Ramniwas Choudhary, Resident Of House No. 26, Gram Machwa, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1671/2024

1. Jeevan S/o Late Shri Chhotu, R/o Village Sukhalpura, Mansarovar, Sector 3, Presently Residing At Sanganer, Tehsil Sangarner, District Jaipur

2. Gopal S/o Late Shri Chhotu, (Deceased) Through Their Legal Heirs [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (2 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024]

3. Smt. Badam Devi W/o Late Gopal, R/o House No. 31, Nand Vihar, Bagadaon Ka Bad, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

4. Ghanshaym Choudhary S/o Late Gopal, R/o House No. 31, Nand Vihar, Bagadaon Ka Bad, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

5. Mahendra Choudhary S/o Late Gopal, R/o House No. 31, Nand Vihar, Bagadaon Ka Bad, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

Smt. Lali Devi D/o Late Gopal W/o Shri Ramniwas Choudhary, R/o House No. 26, Village Machwa, Jothwara, Jaipur ----Appellants Versus

2. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Secretary Smt. Galkhu Devi W/o Late Mohru, (Deceased, Died During Reference, Deleted Name On Dated 29.08.2022)

3. Shanti Choudhary D/o Late Mohru, R/o Village Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

4. Ramnarayan Choudhary S/o Late Mohru, R/o Village Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

5. Land Acquisition Officer, Housing Board, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma in CMA No.1305/2024 Mr. Tushar Panwar with Mr. Rohit Mahrada in CMA No.1671/2024 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Panwar with Mr. Rohit Mahrada for respondents No.1 & 2 in CMA No. 1305/2024 Mr. Nitin Jain for respondents No.3 to 5 in CMA No.1305/2024 and for respondents No.2 to 4 in CMA No.1671/2024 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (3 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] Reserved on Pronounced on ::: ::: July 09, 2025 July 24, 2025

1. Both these civil misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants with a challenge to the Judgment and Decree dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the court below’) in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.44/1989 (89/2020) and therefore, both the misc. appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1305/2024 has been filed by the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board with a challenge to the impugned Judgment to the extent of enhancement of the rate of compensation for the acquired land.

3. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1671/2024 has been filed by the appellants Jeevan & Ors. to the extent of Clause (छ:) of the operative part of the order whereby the respondents No.2 to 4 have been allowed 1/3rd share of the compensation amount awarded for the acquired land.

4. The brief facts of the case borne out from the pleadings are stated in chronological manner as under:-

13.01.1982: Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) was issued.

20.07.1982: After issuance of the aforesaid Notification, Mohru (father) filed an objection before the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to his claim for 1/3rd share.

26.08.1985 (Ex.A3): The Land Acquisition Officer rejected [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (4 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] the objection filed by Mohru on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to decide the inter se rights between the parties and directed Mohru to seek appropriate remedy from the competent Civil Court.

17.08.1985: Possession of the acquired land was taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board.

16.09.1985: Mohru filed a civil suit in the Civil Court for declaration and permanent injunction against the Land Acquisition Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board.

05.11.1985 (Ex.A12): Jeevan, Gopal and Panchi Devi filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the civil suit filed by Mohru for impleading themselves as party in the array of the defendants.

19.11.1985 (Ex.A16): The Civil court allowed the application filed by Jeevan, Gopal & Panchi Devi under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

13.12.1985 (Ex.A18): Plaintiff Mohru and the defendants Jeevan, Gopal and Panchi Devi entered into a compromise wherein it was agreed between them that Mohru will have 1/3rd share in the acquired land whereas Jeevan and Gopal will have 2/3rd share in the acquired land.

21.12.1985 (Ex.A13): On the basis of the said compromise, the Civil Court prepared the decree holding that Mohru is having 1/3rd share in the acquired land.

16.01.1986 (Ex.A8): A joint application was filed by Mohru, Jeevan, Gopal and Panchi Devi before the Land Acquisition Officer, stating therein that Mohru is having 1/3rd share in the acquired land of Khasra No. 214 measuring 16 Bigha 9 Biswa situated in Village Shukalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, whereas Jeevan and Gopal are having 2/3rd share.

06.02.1986 (Ex.A4): The Land Acquisition Officer took the said compromise on record and impleaded Mohru as a party [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (5 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] in the acquisition proceedings to the extent of 1/3rd share in the acquired land for which Jeevan, Gopal and Rajasthan Housing Board did not raise any dispute.

28.12.1988: In case No.1/82/35 the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 only in favour of Jeevan and Gopal.

18.03.1989: Jeevan and Gopal filed reference under section 18 of the Act of 1894 before the Land Acquisition Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.

22.02.2007: Reply to reference application was filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board wherein the objection was taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board that Mohru is having 1/3rd share in the acquired land by virtue of decree dated

21.12.1985 passed by the Competent Authority, wherein he has not been impleaded as a party in the reference application.

22.08.2015: The legal representatives of Mohru filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading themselves as party in the reference application, which was allowed. Pending reference application, Smt. Galkhu Devi w/o Mohru died and therefore, her name was deleted vide order dated 29.08.2022.

24.01.2024: The learned Civil Court partly allowed the reference application wherein the amount of compensation of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per bigha from Rs.20,000/- per bigha. Learned Civil Court in sub-para (छ) of para 22 has held that Gopal, Smt. Galkhu Devi (died during reference proceedings and her name was deleted on

29.08.2022) and Shanti Choudhary are entitled to receive cash compensation to the extent of 1/3rd share.

27.04.2015, 25.08.2022 and 02.04.2024: The legal representatives of Mohru namely; Shanti Choudhary and Ram Narayan Choudhary submitted an application (Vikalp [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (6 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] Patra) before the Court of OSD, Urban Development & Housing Department, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, with a request to allot 15% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation in pursuance of the circulars dated

03.02.2015 and 01.06.2022 and the other circulars issued from time to time by the Urban Development, Housing and Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1305/2024:

5. Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board raised an issue that once the compensation amount for the acquired land has been received by the respondent-land owner, no reference application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 is maintainable on his behalf.

6. Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 submitted that the application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 was filed on 24.03.1989 and the amount of compensation was received by the land owner after filing of the application. Counsel also submitted that even a land owner has received the compensation amount the application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 can be maintained in view of the language of provision of section 28A of the Act of 1894.

7. Section 28A of the Act of 1894 provides that if an amount of compensation is enhanced by a judicial order on an application filed by one of the land owner, the other land [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (7 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] owners are also entitled for compensation at the same rate for the land which is a part of the same Notification.

8. Section 28A of the Act of 1894 is quoted as under:- “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. - (1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (8 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 interpreting the language of section 28A of the Act of 1894 and its effect has observed as under:- “7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same notification.

8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those landowners who are agriculturist in most [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (9 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell off their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (10 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] compensation, the Act provides for “fair compensation”. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.”

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Bhan (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343 has observed as under:- “11. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for GDA was that since the compensation was accepted by the claimants without any protest, the reference was not maintainable. In our opinion, this contention is without any substance for several reasons. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 4 SCC 67] it was held that since the appellants therein had filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, it manifested their intention. Consequently, the protest against the award of the Collector was implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation.”

11. Hence, in view of the provisions of section 28A of the Act of 1894 and so also the observations of the Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (11 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] Apex Court made in the cases of Narendra & Ors.(supra) and Chandra Bhan (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. (supra), as quoted above, the first submission made by the counsel for the appellant Rajasthan Housing Board has no force and this Court can safely held that even if a land owner has received the compensation amount, an application on his behalf under section 18 of the Act of 1894 is maintainable.

12. Counsel appearing for the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board submitted that the enhancement of the compensation amount from Rs.20,000/- per bigha to Rs.40,000/- per bigha is illegal and arbitrary and the findings recorded by the court below are perverse.

13. Counsel appearing for the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board submitted that the compensation is to be determined on the basis of the prescribed market value of the land for the area as on the date of issuance of the first Notification for acquiring the land. He submitted that the first Notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 13.01.1982 and the possession of the land was taken on 17.08.1985 and the award was passed on

28.12.1988. He submitted that the court below has erred in relying upon the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) for determining the compensation. He further submitted that it was onus upon the applicants to prove that the [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (12 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] market rate of the acquired land of the applicants was Rs.40,000/- per bigha on the date of issuance of the first Notification but the respondents/ applicants failed to produce any evidence in that regard. He also submitted that the compensation of a land is determined in view of section 23 of the Act of 1894. Counsel also submitted that the land which is subject matter of the sale deeds 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) which has been made the basis by the court below for enhancement of the compensation amount is near to the Jaipur City, whereas the acquired land of the respondents is at a far distance from Jaipur City, and therefore, enhancing the compensation amount on the basis of the market value of the other land, which is the subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) is not sustainable.

14. Counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that Ex.3 and 4 are the sale deeds dated

08.06.1983 i.e. the date prior to taking possession of their land by the Rajasthan Housing Board and passing of the award. He further submitted that the land of the applicants/ respondents which is acquired by the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board and the land which is a subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) both are part of the same Notification dated 13.01.1982 issued for acquiring the land and both the lands are also part of the same Scheme developed by the appellant- Rajasthan Housing [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (13 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] Board.

15. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board as well as counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record so also the provisions of law.

16. A Notification for acquiring the land was issued whereby the proceedings for acquisition of the land of the respondents were initiated along-with the land which is the subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4). It is the basic principle of the land acquisition law that a land owner must get just and fair compensation. The land which is a subject matter of the sale deeds dated

08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) has been sold at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha prior to passing of the award and taking possession of the land by the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board. Meaning-thereby, before determination of the compensation amount the market value of one part of the land comes out to be Rs.40,000/- per bigha. Then in view of just and fair compensation policy, the land owner of the other part of the land being acquired by the same Notification also deserves for compensation treating to be the market value of the land as Rs.40,000/- per bigha. One more peculiar fact has also come on record that the land which is the subject matter of the sale deeds dated

08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) and the land of the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (14 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] acquired by the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board is a part of the same Housing Scheme developed by the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board and therefore, the market value of acquired land of the respondents deserves to be treated as Rs.40,000/- per bigha and they are entitled for the compensation to be determined on that basis.

17. One of the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board is that the land which is the subject matter of the sale deeds dated

08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) is near to the Jaipur city, whereas the land of the respondents is far from Jaipur City and therefore, they cannot claim the market value of their land equal to the land which is subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4). The market value of a property or a land in normal course may depend on a distance from a City but it does not happen always. Many at times, the land which is far from a City, its market value could be higher than a land which is near to a City for numerous reasons like the adjacent locality, development over the adjacent land or passing of a main street, sector, highway roads. In the present case the appellant Rajasthan Housing Board has developed a Housing Scheme and the land of the respondents as well as the land which is subject matter of sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4) is a part of the [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (15 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] same Scheme. Hence, considering the Public Policy of just and fair compensation, the compensation is to be determined treating the market value of the land of the respondents as the price fetched with sale consideration in view of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and 4).

18. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Danifel and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3998 of 2024) decided on March 27, 2025, after having considered the relevant provisions of the Act of 1894 and the corresponding provisions of the Acquisition Act, 2013 has observed as under:- “4. To compute compensation under the Acquisition Act, 1894, the general threshold applied by the courts is to ascertain the market value of the acquired land. This also includes its potential value with reference to the conditions prevailing at the time of making a declaration under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, 1894. The International Valuation Standards Council states that the market value of the land represents the estimated amount that a willing buyer would pay prudently to a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, without compulsion, on a particular valuation date. This estimate includes characteristics unique to the land that would inflate or deflate its price but excludes special concessions or considerations granted by anyone associated with the sale. The buyer here refers to one who is motivated but is neither [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (16 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] overeager nor determined to buy irrespective of the price quoted. Similarly, the seller here is neither over-eager nor forced. Both parties are assumed to be conducting the transaction in keeping with market realities, rather than terms that are hypothetical or cannot be anticipated to exist. The factual circumstances of the parties are not part of this consideration.

5. In Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others v. Collector of Ranchi and Vice Versa, this Court acknowledged several methods for ascertaining the market value of land, such as – (i) the opinion of experts; (ii) the price paid in bona fide transactions for the purchase of adjacent lands possessing similar advantages and disadvantages; and (iii) capitalization of the actual and immediate prospective annual profits from the land. However, this exercise must take into consideration subjective features and special circumstances. Land values vary based on their qualitative and quantitative attributes, location, proximity to developed land, potential, etc. The lack of reliable local sale data, coupled with variable land conditions, undermines accurate assessment. Nevertheless, framing objective standards can help arrive at an empirical value that most closely reflects the true market price.

7. The theory of deduction was applied in the case of Tribeni Devi (supra), which was decided in

1971. Recently, in a 2017 decision in Jag Mahender and Another v. State of Haryana and Others as well, the theory of deduction was applied to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value. This [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (17 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] judgment also states that the prospective prices of smaller developed plots cannot be adopted to determine the value of underdeveloped tracts of land. Further, the peculiarities of the land – whether the same is plain or uneven, the soil is soft or hard, whether the land is situated on a hill or is low-lying, etc. are all relevant factors. A given parcel of land has multiple dimensions – social, economic, territorial, and environmental. Accordingly, the market value must be computed through a valuation model based on attribute pricing rather than fixed prices. In some cases, sale deeds for adjoining lands can be an ‘exemplar’, i.e., lands that are similarly placed and have comparable attributes. However, computation of the market value may require calibration, taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the acquired land relative to the exemplars. The exemplars must be carefully chosen, especially as lands are often heuristically grouped in localities at the same rate due to a lack of specific data.

31. Section 27 relates to the determination of the amount of compensation. The Collector having determined the market value of the land under Section 26, has to calculate the amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner, as mandated in terms of Section 23 of the Acquisition Act, 2013. While Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013 uses the word “criteria” for computing the highest value under Clauses (a) to (c), and mandates that the exercise is undertaken applying the four Explanations, the final determination vests with the Collector under Section 27 of the [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (18 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] Acquisition Act, 2013. This is also evident from the language of Section 26(1) as well as Section 23(b), which use the expression “which in his (Collector’s) opinion should be allowed for the land.”

32. Section 28 sets out the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determining the award. It refers to seven factors for computing the amount payable as compensation. The very first factor is the market value as determined under Section 26, and the award amount computed in accordance with the First and the Second Schedules to the Acquisition Act, 2013. Other clauses cover damage sustained due to factors such as loss of standing crops or trees, severance of land, adverse effects on other property, loss of income, and costs or losses from change in residence or place of business. Losses, if any, bona fide resulting from the diminution of the profits are also to be accounted for. The seventh ground is particularly important. It states that the Collector can take into consideration any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families. This clause will not apply to reduce the market value of land determined under Section 26, but the Collector can apply it to enhance the market value in the interest of equity and justice if it is beneficial to the affected families.”

19. Ex.3 and Ex.4 are the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 of the land which has been acquired by the same Notification by which the land of the respondents has been acquired and the appellant Rajasthan Housing Board has [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (19 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] developed the Housing Scheme which covers both- the respondents’ land as well as the land which is the subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and Ex.4). In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the case of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (supra), the Court feels that the court below has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs.40,000/- per bigha equal to the sale price for the other land by the same Notification in the same vicinity which is subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.06.1983 (Ex.3 and Ex.4).

20. On a critical scrutiny of the material available on the record and the findings given by the court below in view of the discussion made above, the Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the said findings. The Court below has not committed any error or perversity in deciding the issue No.1 in favour of the respondents/ applicants. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Misc. Appeal No.1671/2024:

21. Mr. Tushar Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Jeevan & Ors., has submitted that the dispute before the court below was in regard to the enhancement of compensation amount for the acquired land which was an agricultural land and therefore, the Civil Court was having no jurisdiction to decide the share of the parties in dispute. [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (20 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] He further submitted that the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 in the present appeal in-stead of entering into the present litigation by way of an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC were having a proper remedy to challenge the award under section 30 of the Act of 1894 which deals with the disputes as regards apportionment of the compensation amount.

22. Counsel also submitted that the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 are claiming their shares in the compensation amount on the basis of a decree dated 21.12.1985 but since the limitation period for execution of the said decree has also expired they cannot claim any rights on the basis of the said decree for which the limitation for execution is already over. He also disputes the signatures of Jeevan on the compromise which has been made basis for passing the decree dated 21.12.1985.

23. Counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4 submitted that the court below has allowed 1/3rd share to the appellants in the compensation amount for the acquired land on the basis of a compromise decree and so also the applications submitted by both the parties. He also submitted a joint application was also submitted by both the parties before the Land Acquisition Officer with a clause that the present respondents are also entitled for 1/3rd share in the compensation amount. Counsel further submitted that it [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (21 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] is the only Civil Court which has jurisdiction to decide the issue of compensation, as the compensation is a civil matter and not a revenue matter. He also submitted that in view of the judgment and decree passed on the basis of the compromise between the parties both the parties have also submitted joint application on 16.01.1986 to the Land Acquisition Officer which is Ex.A8. He submitted that in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the court below do not call for any interference.

24. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the record of the case.

25. On perusal of the record, the material facts are that a Notification for acquisition of the land in question was issued on 13.01.1982 and the respondents No.3 and 4 said to have filed their objections to the Land Acquisition Officer on 20.07.1982 which were rejected on 26.08.1985 (Ex.A3).

26. Thereafter, the respondents preferred a suit on

16.09.1985 against the State and the Rajasthan Housing Board. However, the appellants Jeevan, Gopal and Panchi Devi filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as defendants in the suit proceedings and vide order dated 05.11.1985 their applications were allowed and they were made as party defendants in the suit proceedings. [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (22 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] On 13.12.1985 a compromise (Ex.A18) was submitted by both the parties with their thumb impressions on it and the said compromise was attested vide order dated 21.12.1985 (Ex.A13) and a decree based on the compromise between both the parties was passed on

21.12.1985 (Ex.A20).

27. Thereafter, both the parties submitted a joint application dated 16.01.1986 (Ex.A8) before the Land Acquisition Officer. Therein it was stated that Mohru- predecessor of the respondents would be entitled for 1/3rd share of compensation. On the basis of the joint application, the rights of the parties were determined vide order dated

06.02.1986 (Ex.A4). In reply to the reference application the Rajasthan Housing Board in para 17 has admitted the fact of compromise and determined the rights of shares of both the parties. In the reference application filed by the appellants, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the present respondents and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.08.2015 with detailed reasons including the compromise decree etc. No challenge has been made by the appellants to that order. The learned court below to decide the shares of the parties has framed the issue No.3. The court below having given its findings on each of the issue raised by the counsel appearing for the appellants has [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (23 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] decided the issue in favour of the respondents and has held that the respondents are entitled for 1/3rd share in the compensation amount. The court below after making scrutiny of the evidence, considered the issues that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass the decree as regards the declaration of share in the compensation amount, the validity of the decree, the jurisdiction of the Court and the effect of decree of declaration, limitation for execution of a decree, the rights of a party for compensation amount is well within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Once a decree has been passed on the basis of the compromise and the rights of the parties as regards the compensation have also been decided vide order dated 06.02.1986 (Ex.A4) on the basis of a compromise application (Ex.A8), the appellants are estopped from raising any grievance as regards the compromise.

28. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case on record and so also the extensive scrutiny of the evidence, the Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the findings of the court below in deciding the shares of the parties in the compensation amount and thus, the present misc. appeal deserves to be dismissed having no force. RESULT:

29. In view of the discussion made above, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:27425] (24 of 24) [CMA-1305/2024] court below and accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.

30. Stay applications and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed.

31. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the connected case file.

32. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Court forthwith. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar