[2026:RJ-JP:26996]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11859/2020

URN: CW / 22010U / 2020

1 State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, to the

Government, Department of Water Resources

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2 The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources,

Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)

3 The Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources,

Jaipur Division-I, Railway Station, Jaipur (Raj)

----Petitioners

Versus

1 Smt Bholi, W/o Late Shri Bhonri Lal

2 Madho Ram, Son of Late Shri Bhonri Lal

3 Babu Lal, Son of Late Shri Bhonri Lal

4 Smt. Narayani D/o Late Shri Bhonri Lal Wife of Shri Asha

Ram, R/o Sriram Ki Nangal, Tehsil Sanganer, District

Jaipur

5 Prabhu Son of Late Shri Sitaram Meena, Resident of Beed

Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

6 Sonya @ Sohan Lal Son of Late Shri Sitaram Meena,

(Deceased During Pendency Of The Writ Petition)

6.1 Smt. Chandi Devi W/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal,

Resident of Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

(Rajasthan).

6.2 Ramphool S/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal, Resident of

Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

6.3 Kailash S/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal, Resident of

Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

6.4 Ku. Nangi D/o Late Shri Sonya @ Sohan Lal, Resident of

Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

7 Smt. Phooli Wife of Late Shri Lalaram Meena, Resident of

Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

8 Kalu Son of Late Shri Lalaram Meena, Resident of Beed

Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

9 Narayan Son of Larte Shri Lalaram Meena, Resident of

Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (2 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

10 Smt. Dugli Wife of Shri Chotya, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

11 Raju Son of Shri Chotya, Resident of Beed Papad, Tehsil

And District Jaipur

12 Kaushalya D/o Shri Chotya, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

13 Smt. Gyarsi Devi W/o Late Shri Chauthya Meena,

Resident of Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

14 Girraj Meena Son of Late Shri Chauthya Meena,

(Deceased During Pendency Of The Writ Petition)

14.1Smt. Kalli Dvi W/o Late Shri Girraj Meena, R/o Beed

Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

15 Kaluram Meena Son of Late Shri Chauthya Meena,

Resident Of Beed Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

16 Smt. Panchi Wife of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed

Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

17 Mithalal Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

18 Lalaram Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

19 Banwari Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

20 Rakesh Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

21 Ramesh Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

22 Raju Son of Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

23 Kumari Nangi D/o Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed

Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

24 Kumari Komal D/o Late Shri Gainda, Resident of Beed

Papad, Tehsil And District Jaipur

25 Rewad Son of Late Shri Mangle, Resident of Beed Papad,

Tehsil And District Jaipur

----Respondents

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (3 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG

Ms. Mahi Choudhary

Mr. Hardik Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Lokesh Tiwari,

Mr. Nikhil Simlote

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

1.Date of conclusion of Arguments 14.07.2026

2.Date on which the judgment was reserved 14.07.2026

3.Whether the full judgment or only operative

part is pronounced

Full

4.Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026

1.This Civil Writ Petition, by and on behalf of petitioner–State

of Rajasthan, has been directed against two orders, the order

dated 14.10.2019, denying to review/recall the order dated

13.07.2017, so also against order dated 13.07.2017, both orders

passed by learned Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jaipur Metro, in Execution Application No.56/2012 titled as ‘Smt.

Bholi & Ors. Versus Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation

Department & Ors.’ Challenge to the impugned orders has been

made by petitioners, invoking jurisdiction of High Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby petitioner-

State seeks to question the quantum of compensation and interest

thereupon, payable to respondents-Khatedars in lieu of acquisition

of their land pursuant to award dated 12.08.1983 as amended

vide order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer (for short ‘LAO’) under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act,

1953, now repealed since provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (4 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

1894 have come in effect and operation in Rajasthan w.e.f.

24.09.1984.

2.According to the petitioners, compensation as per calculation

of the original award dated 12.08.1983 has already been paid to

the respondents and in terms of the amended award dated

07.04.2011, due compensation payable to respondents, comes to

the tune of Rs.85,74,725/- with interest as on 28.07.2017

whereas in the order impugned dated 13.07.2017, learned Senior

Civil Judge assessed the due compensation, to the tune of

Rs.3,14,47,142/- along with interest as on 08.08.2017.

Thereafter, petitioners filed application dated 08.08.2017 seeking

to recall/review the order of assessment dated 13.07.2017, but

same has been dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metro

vide order dated 14.10.2019 and after calculating the interest of

one month (08.12.2013 to 07.01.2014), which was inadvertently

left un-calculated and interest of future period upto 02.11.2019,

the payable amount to respondents-khatedars was calculated

Rs.3,46,13,863/-. In the present Writ Petition, both the orders

have been put to challenge by petitioners.

3.When the present writ petition came up on board on

05.10.2021, following order was passed:-

“1. Admit. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Sheetal, learned counsel for the petitioner-

State undertakes that a sum of Rs.85,74,725/- and

interest thereupon, which according to the State is

payable to the respondents shall be paid within two

weeks.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated

06.09.2021 passed by this Court is modified and

stay application is disposed of with a direction that

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (5 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

in case, the petitioners deposit the aforesaid

amount by 31.10.2021, the executing Court shall

not take any coercive measure for enforcement of

the amount, pursuant to orders dated 13.07.2017

and 14.10.2019.

4. In case, the petitioners fail to deposit the above

referred admitted amount by 31.10.2021, the

executing Court shall be free to proceed, in

accordance with law.

5. Stay petition stands disposed of.

6. Needless to observe that the contention of the

rival parties, in relation to the remaining amount

pursuant to impugned order shall be subject to final

outcome and/or any further order to be passed in

the present writ petition. And in case, any

further/additional amount is found payable, it shall

carry interest @ 6% p.a. from 31.10.2021 until the

same is paid.”

4.According to the counsel for petitioners, in the light of the

order dated 05.10.2021, due compensation amount of

Rs.85,74,725/- along with accrued interest thereupon

(Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount + Rs.28,20,569/- interest

amount = Rs.1,13,95,294/- total amount) from 31.10.2021 has

already been deposited by petitioners on 08.11.2021, by way of

bankers cheque dated 03.11.2021 and delay of eight days

occurred in deposition of compensation has also been condoned by

the High Court vide order dated 12.01.2022, therefore, the stay

order, against enforcement of payment of remaining amount of

compensation in terms of order dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019

had come in effect and same is in force until decision of the

present writ petition.

Note:- Admittedly, Execution Petition No.56/2012 for recovery of

remaining amount of compensation as per amended award dated

07.04.2011 is sub judice and pending before the learned Senior

Civil Judge.

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (6 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

5.During course of Writ Petition, Application (IA No.2/2021)

dated 01.03.2021 was filed by petitioners to take certain

documents on record, which was allowed vide order dated

06.09.2021 and documents have been taken on record. Then,

respondents filed an another application No.1/2023 dated

12.04.2023 to take documents R/6/1 to R/6/3 on record, which

has also been allowed vide order dated 26.04.2023. Then, from

the side of petitioners, entire compilation of documents for the

sake of brevity was placed on record on 13.03.2026, which has

also been taken on record on the same day.

6.Backdrop of facts, as culled out from record, whereunder

calculation of due compensation under the orders impugned dated

13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019 came to be made, can be

recapitulated, succinctly, as under:-

6.1Petitioner-State issued notification dated 04.02.1982 under

Section 4(1) of the Act of 1953, initiating proceedings to acquire

land ad-measuring 1887 bighas 10 biswas located in Tehsil and

District Jaipur for the public purpose of construction of Mazaar

Dam on Amanishah Ka Nala, Jaipur. The notification dated

04.02.1982 was followed by declaration dated 16.02.1982 under

Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act of 1953 and an award

dated 12.08.1983 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer,

computing the compensation to be awarded for the acquired

lands. The possession of acquired lands was taken by the

petitioner-State from Khatedars on 28.08.1982.

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (7 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

6.2In such acquisition proceedings, land ad-measuring 268

bighas and 15 biswas bearing Khasra Nos.46/53, 46/54, 46/55,

46/56, 46/57, 46/58, 46/59, 46/1, belonging to the respondents-

Khatedars located at Village Beed Papad, Tehsil and District Jaipur

and land ad measuring 68 bighas and 9 biswas, belonging to one

another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram Gurjar located in Village

Kishanbag, Tehsil and District Jaipur were also acquired and in the

one and same award dated 12.08.1983, the compensation of

acquired lands of these khatedars, barani in nature, was

determined by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of

Rs.12,000/- per bigha with solatium at the rate of 10% and

interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The award dated

12.08.1983 was common.

6.3Another Khatedar – Mr. Ghasi Ram, being dissatisfied with

the quantum of compensation as determined under the award

dated 12.08.1983, requested to make a reference, under Section

18 of the Act of 1953 for re-determination of compensation by the

competent authority. His request was acceded and under

Reference Land Acquisition Case No.47/1984, competent

authority, vide order dated 27.03.1992 revised and re-determined

the compensation of barani lands at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per

bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- per bigha with solatium at the rate of

30% and further interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid

from the date of notification under Section 4 dated 04.02.1982 till

the date of taking possession, with further interest at the rate of

9% per annum for the first year commencing from the date of

taking possession i.e. 28.08.1982 and thereafter, at the rate of

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (8 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

15% per annum till the actual payment of revised compensation is

made. For ready reference, the reasoning and operative portion of

order dated 27.03.1992 is being reproduced hereunder:-

"14& izkFkhZ dh vksj ls 1988 vkj ,y vkj 640 deyknsoh

cuke ch,l,Q tks/kiqj ,vkbZvkj] 1992 lqizhe dksVZ 150 xksdwy

cuke gfj;kuk jkT;] , vkbZ vkj 1980 lqizhe dksVZ] 1870 ,-

xksiky cuke Lis”ky fMIVh lsdszVjh] , vkbZ vkj 1984 lqizhe

dksVZ 774 ,y,vks nsoufxjh cuke] ih- ohjHknzIik] 1984 lqizhe

dksVZ 892 Jherh dkS”kY;k nsoh cuke ,y,vks fofu.kZ; is”k gq,

gSaA bu lkjs fofu.kZ;ksa esa ;g fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd Hkwfe dk

eqvkotk r; djrs le; Hkwfe dh iksVsaf”k;y oSY;w n`f’Vxr

j[kuh pkfg,A blds vykok Hkwfe fdl izdkj dh gS] bldk

orZeku esa D;k mi;ksx gks jgk gS] blds vklikl dkSulh

Hkwfe;ka gSa vkSj vklikl dh Hkwfe dk D;k mi;ksx gks jgk gS rFkk

mldk vokIr”kqnk Hkwfe ij D;k izHkko gS] ;g lc rF; n`f’Vxr

j[kus pkfg,A 1992 lqizhe dksVZ 150 esa ekuuh; mPPkre

U;k;ky; us vokIr”kqnk Hkwfe ftl xkao esa Fkh] ml xkao esa gq,

igys dh vokfIr esa fn, x, eqvkotk ds ckn Hkwfe dh dherksa

esa gqbZ o`f) dks n`f’Vxr j[krs gq, eqvkotk dh jkf”k eas o`f)

dh gSA gekjs ekeys esa Lo;a ,y,vks us vius vokMZ esa ekuk gS

fd Qjojh] 82 dh izpfyr nj dkQh vf/kd gS] ijUrq jkT;

ljdkj ds funsZ'k dh otg ls mUgksaus mDr nj ls eqvkotk ugha

fn;kA mUgkssus ;g Hkh ekuk gS fd mDr Hkwfe fo|k/kj

uxj ;kstuk ds vklikl FkhA tsMh, }kjk izkFkhZ dks fn, x;s

uksfVl fnukad 17-12-83 ls Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd tsMh, mDr

Hkwfe dks fo|k/kj uxj ;kstuk ds fy, vokIr djuk pkgrh FkhA

bu rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd vokIr'kqnk Hkwfe vkoklh; ;kstuk

rFkk O;kolkf;d ;kstuk ds fy, mi;qDr gSA Hkwfe esa vokfIr ds

le; ;fn [skrh ugha Hkh gks jgh Fkh rks blls esjs fopkj ls dksbZ

varj ugha iM+rkA D;ksafd catj Hkwfe ij Hkh vkoklh; ;k

O;kolkf;d ;kstuk cu ldrh gS vkSj okLro esa blh mi;ksx

ds fy, ,slh Hkwfe ifj;kstuk cuh gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ ds lk{;ksa ls ;g

Li"V gS fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds pkjksa vksj vkcknh cl pqdh gS

vkSj fo|k/kj uxj ;kstuk tSlh tsMh, dh egRoiw.kZ

vkoklh; ;kstuk gSA fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds ikl ds xzke chM

ljdkjh esa eqvkotk 24 gtkj :- izfr ch?kk dh nj ls fn;k

x;k gS] dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS fd fookxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa

eqvkotk bl nj ls izkFkhZx.k dks u fnyk;k tkosA fook|d dze

1 o 2 blh izdkj r; fd; tkrs gSaA

19& vr% Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds jsQjsal esa bl izdkj vkns”k

fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k vokIr”kqnk Hkwfe dk eqvkotk :-

24000@& izfrch?kk dh nj ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] tks

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (9 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

jkf”k :i;s 16]42]800@& gksrh gSA bl jkf”k ij 30 izfr”kr

dh nj ls vfuok;Z vokfIr ds dkj.k dqy :i;s 4]92]840@&

Hkh izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaaaaA blesa ls izkFkhZ }kjk iwoZ

esa izkIr dh xbZ jkf”k :- 903540@& de djus ij “ks’k

jkf”k :i;s 12]32]100@& izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA

20& /kkjk 23¼1&,½ Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj vokfIr

ds fy, /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k 4-2-82 ls dCtk ysus

dh rkjh[k 28-8-82 rd cktk: nj ij 12 izfr”kr dh nj ls

dqy jkf”k :- 1]10]068@& :i;s izkFkhZXk.k izkIr djus ds

vf/kdkjh gSA

21& /kkjk 34 ds rgr dCtk ysus dh fnukad ls eqvkotk jkf”k

ds Hkqxrku rd izFke o’kZ ds fy, 9 izfr”kr o ckn dh vof/k

ds fy, 15 izfr”kr lkykuk nj ls jkf”k Hkh izkFkhZx.k izkIr djus

ds gdnkj gksaxsA bl jkf”k esa ls dysDVj }kjk fnyokbZ xbZ 4

izfr”kr dh jkf”k lek;kstu ds ckn gh cdk;k jkf”k izkIr djus

ds izkFkhZx.k vf/kdkjh gSaA blds vykok /kkjk 27 ds vuqlkj

jsQjsal dh dksLV Hkh dysDVj }kjk ns; gksxhA fu.kZ;kuqlkj

fMdzh rS;kj gksA"

(underline supplied)

6.4It is not in dispute that based on the order dated

27.03.1992, passed by the competent authority whereby the

compensation of acquired lands of khatedar- Ghasi Ram was re-

determined, the compensation payable to respondents-Khatedars

for their acquired lands under the same award dated 12.08.1983

also came to be re-determined/revised by the Land Acquisition

Officer vide order dated 07.04.2011, and accordingly original

award came to be amended, on the same terms of the order dated

27.03.1992, in exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the Act of

1894 as amended vide Amendment Act, 1984. Relevant portion of

order dated 07.04.2011 is being reproduced hereunder:-

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (10 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

"/kkjk 28 ¼,½ esa eq[; fopkj.kh; iz'u fuEu gS%&

1- /kkjk 4 dh foKfIr ,d gh fnukad dks ,d gh xtV

uksfVfQds'ku }kjk tkjh gksuh pkfg, ,oa vokMZ ,d gh

fnukad /kkjk 11 ds rgr tkjh gksuk pkfg,A

2- tks [kkrsnkj /kkjk 18 Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds rgr

jsQjsal is'k ugha djrk gS vkSj ftlus is'k fd;k gS mlesa

jkf'k ekU; flfoy tt }kjk c<+kbZ tkrh gS rks og izkFkZuk

i= rhu ekg ds vanj is'k dj c<+h gqbZ jkf'k flfoy tt ds

QSlys ds vuqlkj izkIr dj ldrk gSA izLrqr izdj.k mijksDr

/kkjk 28 ¼,½ ds vuqlkj gS ;k ugha ;g gesa ns[kuk gS\

3- izkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 20-06-1992 dks is'k

fd;k gS ,oa ekU; flfoy tt t;iqj 'kgj dk QSlyk

fnukad 27-03-1992 o 10-04-1992 dk gSA blfy, izkFkZuk i=

vanj fe;kn izLrqr gS ,oa /kkjk 4 dk uksfVfQds'ku xtV ,d

gh fnukad ,d gh xtV }kjk izdkf'kr gqvk gS ftldk vokMZ

Hkh ,d gh fnukad 12-08-83 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA blfy,

izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZx.k dk mDr ,DV dh /kkjk 28¼,½ ds vuqlkj

eatwj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr le>rs gSA

4- geus mDr izkFkZuk i= ls lacaf/kr vizkFkhZx.k dks uksfVl

tkjh fd;s ftudh rkehy fof/kor~ gksus ij foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k

mifLFkr gq, ,oa ckj ckj ds le; nsus ds i'pkr tokc

jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls is'k gqvk ,oa Jherh fueZyk

ekFkqj] ,MoksdsV us odkyrukek is'k fd;kA geus izkFkhZx.k ds

,MoksdsV Jh izHkkrh yky 'kekZ }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr cgl dk

v/;;u fd;k ,oa foi{kh dh vksj ls Jherh fueZyk

ekFkqj }kjk ,oa ekSf[kd cgl fnukad 28-03-11 dks lquh

tkdj okLrs fu.kZ; fnukad 07-04-11 fuf'pr dh xbZA geus

izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= o fyf[kr cgl dk v/;;u

euu fd;k rFkk /kkjk 28 , Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu djus ds i'pkr

izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dks eatwj fd;k tkuk

U;k;ksfpr le>rs gSA izkFkhZx.k dk izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 28¼,½ ds

rgr eatwj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZx.k dks viuh Hkwfe dh eqvkotk

jkf'k 12]000@& : izfrch?kk dh nj ds LFkku ij ekU;

flfoy tt t;iqj ds QSlys fnukad 27-03-92 o 10+-04-92

ds vuqlkj 24]000@&: izfrch?kk dh nj ls eqvkotk jkf'k

r; dh tkrh gS D;ksafd /kkjk 28¼,½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k /kkjk

18 jsQjsal dh c<+h gqbZ jkf'k gh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh

gS] ,oa izkFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 23¼1½ ¼,½ ds vuqlkj /kkjk 4 dh

foKfIr tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k rd

dh 12 izfr'kr jkf'k dher ds vykok izkIr djus ds

vf/kdkjh gS ,oa /kkjk 23¼2½ ds vuqlkj lksysfl;e jkf'k 30

izfr'kr ds lkFk gh /kkjk 28 o 34 ds vuqlkj mijksDr jkf'k

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (11 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

dk 1 o"kZ dk C;kt 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls ,oa mlds

i'pkr 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt dh jkf'k viuh

[kkrsnkjh Hkwfe izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr Hkwfe [kljk uacjku

46@53 jdck 4 ch?kk 03 fcLok] 46@54 jdck 2 ch?kk 10

fcLok] 46@55 jdck 4 ch?kk 05 fcLok] 46@56 jdck 2

ch?kk 15 fcLok] 46@57 jdck 0 ch?kk 05 fcLok] 46@58

jdck 18 ch?kk 10 fcLok] 46@59 jdck 2 ch?kk 19 fcLok]

46@1 jdck 233 ch?kk 08 fcLok dqy fdrk 8 jdck 268

ch?kk 15 fcLok okds xzke chM ikiM+ rglhy ,oa ftyk

t;iqj esa fLFkr dh jkf'k mijksDrkuqlkj vius vius fgLls dh

ntZukuqlkj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA"

(emphasis supplied)

6.5It is further undisputed fact on record that the order of the

Land Acquisition Officer dated 07.04.2011 whereby virtually

original award dated 12.08.1983 for the acquired land of

respondents came to be amended by revising/re-determining the

compensation, which was declared to be payable by petitioner to

respondents-khatedars for their acquired lands, was challenged by

the petitioner-State by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.18557/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Land Acquisition

Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur & Ors.). Respondents-Khatedars had also

preferred a Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.11551/2011 (Bhonri Lal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan &

Ors.) seeking implementation of the amended award dated

07.04.2011, to calculate and pay the compensation to them as per

the enhanced and revised rate. Both the Writ Petitions came to be

decided by the High Court vide a common order dated 10.04.2012

and while affirming the order dated 07.04.2011, it was directed by

the High Court that the additional compensation, as determined

vide order dated 07.04.2011, passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer be paid to Khatedars within a period of three months.

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (12 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

6.6It is noteworthy that the order of the High Court passed by

the learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2012 has been affirmed by

the Division Bench as D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ)

No.1257/2012 & 1262/2012 filed thereagainst by the petitioner-

State, have been dismissed on merit vide order dated 19.02.2013

and thereafter, the order of amended award dated 07.04.2011 has

attained finality. For ready reference, relevant portion of order

dated 19.02.2013 reads as under:-

“The submission made is wholly bereft of merit

for the reason that Section 28A of the Act has been

enacted by the legislature only with the intent that

all the khatedars/land owners whose land has been

acquired must be kept at par, which could be notices

by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing Award,

if any order is passed at a later point of time U/s 28A

of the Act benefits have to be granted in the same

manner under the law and once the enhanced

compensation was awarded by the competent

authority vide its order dated 27.03.1992 there

appears no justification to adopt different standards

as regards payment of enhanced compensation

including solatium & interest to other khatedars/land

owners, who too were covered under the same

notification whose land was also acquired and

possession was taken over by the appropriate

government on 28.08.1982 and this what the

learned Single Judge noticed in its order impugned

and rejected the contention advanced by the counsel

for appellant-State.

After hearing counsel for the parties at length &

having gone through the material which came on

record, we are of the view that once enhanced

compensation was awarded to one of the

khatedar/land owner all other similarly situated are

also entitled for the same benefits in terms thereof

U/s 28A of the Act and as regards rate of interest,

the khatedar/owner is entitled to in terms of Sec.34

of the Act and in the instant case, enhanced

compensation has been paid in conformity with the

mandate of law and that does not require any

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (13 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

interference in the instant appeals which have been

filed at the behest of State of Rajasthan.

Consequently, all these appeals are wholly

devoid of merit & accordingly stand dismissed.”

(emphasis supplied)

6.7Thus, it is clear that the compensation for acquired lands of

the respondents is required to be paid by the petitioner-State at

the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- per bigha

along with solatium at the rate of 30% thereupon and interest on

the compensation amount, as per amended award/ order dated

07.04.2011, in the same terms as has been calculated and paid by

petitioner-State to another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram for his acquired

land in terms of the order dated 27.03.1992, pursuant to the one

and same common award dated 12.08.1983.

6.8It appears that one execution application by legal heirs of

khatedar-Mr. Ghasi Ram (deceased), namely Nathu was filed,

which was registered on No.55/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge

and therein, compensation as per the enhanced rate was

calculated as also has been paid by the petitioners-State. This fact

stands fortified by the orders of calculation of award as per

enhanced rate and the information provided under Right to

Information Act to respondents. The relimit orders, proceedings of

execution and information divulged under RT Act are available on

record.

6.9It appears that an another Execution Application was filed by

the respondents against the petitioner-State for awarding the

additional compensation at the revised rate in terms of the order

dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (14 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

was affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 10.04.2012. The

execution application of respondents, was registered on No.

56/2012, titled ‘Smt. Bholi & Ors. Versus Additional Chief

Engineer, Irrigation Department & Ors.’ wherein due compensation

was calculated by Senior Civil Judge and after adjustment of

compensation amount, already paid to respondents, an order to

attach the properties of the petitioner-State came to be passed on

09.07.2013, in order to realise the unpaid amount of enhanced

compensation along with solatium and interest. Feeling aggrieved

against the order of attachment dated 09.07.2013, petitioner-

State preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13370/2013 (State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Smt. Bholi & Ors.), before the High Court.

This writ petition came to be disposed of by the High Court, vide

order dated 18.05.2017 with the consent of the counsel for both

the parties, and the order of attachment dated 09.07.2013, was

set aside and issue of calculation of the compensation and interest

thereupon, payable to the respondents-Khatedars for their

acquired lands, was remanded back to the learned Civil Court for

recalculation afresh within a period of six weeks after hearing both

parties.

6.10 In furtherance to the remand order of the High Court

dated 18.05.2017, petitioner submitted calculation chart dated

04.07.2017 before the Civil Court, wherein calculation of the due

compensation with interest up to 28.07.2017 was made to the

tune of Rs.85,74,725/- (Annexure-2). Respondents-Khatedars also

submitted their calculation of due compensation along with

interest up to the date i.e. 08.08.2017 (Annexure-3) for

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (15 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

Rs.4,59,87,589/-. Learned Civil Court, having pondered over the

calculations of due compensation, respectively submitted from

both sides differently, followed the criteria of calculation as

adopted by State Government itself, while calculating and

awarding the due compensation amount to other khatedars in

terms of order of reference dated 27.03.1992 pursuant to the

same award dated 12.08.1983 and accordingly by applying same

method and formula, due compensation payable to respondents-

khatedars has been computed by the Civil Court to the tune of

Rs.3,14,47,142/- vide order dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure-5).

Thereafter, petitioner-State filed an application dated 08.08.2017

(Annexure-6), seeking to recall/review the calculation of

compensation made under order dated 13.07.2017. Respondents-

khatedars too, after accepting the calculation made under order

dated 13.07.2017, filed a belated application dated 01.03.2019 for

recalling the order. Learned Senior Civil Judge after hearing both

parties, dismissed both the applications, vide order dated

14.10.2019 and since it came to notice that interest of one month

(08.12.2013 to 07.01.2014) could not be calculated by calculating

the due interest and additional accrued interest up to 02.11.2019,

calculated the due amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.3,46,13,863/- (Annexure-7). Hence, challenging the calculation

of due compensation as per amended award / order dated

07.04.2011, both the orders dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019,

by the Senior Civil Judge, petitioner-State has filed the present

Writ Petition before this Court.

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (16 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

7.Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Basant Singh

Chhaba, put in appearance for and on behalf of petitioners-State

and submitted a brief note of written submissions on 16.07.2026

and pointed out that the complete compilation of documents has

already been placed on record from his side on 13.03.2026 which

has been taken on record. His submission is that as per the

computation of compensation, respondents are not entitled to get

any more amount of compensation because whatever was the due

compensation, payable to respondents as per calculation chart

(Annexure-1), has already been paid by petitioners on 08.11.2021

in compliance of the interim order dated 05.10.2021, hence,

nothing more is required to be paid. His prayer is that after

adjustment of the already paid amount to respondents, impugned

orders be quashed and set aside. During course of verbal

arguments on 14.07.2026 as well, from the side of petitioner, the

compilation of documents submitted by them on 13.03.2026 were

pressed and arguments were made that incorrect calculation was

made by the Civil Court in the impugned orders which needs to be

corrected.

8.The contention of petitioners-State is that learned Civil Court

fell in grave error, while calculating the due amount of

compensation payable to respondents as calculated in orders

impugned.

8.1According to the petitioners, the amount of compensation to

respondents at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per bigha along with

solatium of 10% and interest at the rate of 4% thereupon in terms

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (17 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

of the original award dated 12.08.1983 had already been paid,

therefore, calculation for the rest amount of compensation as per

the revised rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/-

per bigha along with solatium of 30% and interest thereupon in

terms of the amended award dated 07.04.2011 ought to have

been made, confined to the differential amount of compensation

i.e. Rs.24,000/- per bigha minus Rs.12,000/- per bigha at the rate

of Rs.12,000/- per bigha only. Their contention is that the amount

of compensation under the original award, paid to the

respondents, could not be deduced against the interest, after

calculating the compensation afresh in terms of the amended

award dated 07.04.2011. Their contention is that interest, on the

already calculated amount of interest may not be calculated and

allowed to be paid, therefore, the calculation as made by the

petitioners in the chart (Annexure-2), for the differential amount

of compensation, only amount of Rs.85,74,725/- is required to be

paid to the respondents in terms of the order/amended award

dated 07.04.2011. According to them, the calculation chart

(Annexure-2), is only the correct calculation and same should

have been accepted by the Civil Court. According to such

calculation, the only payable amount of enhanced compensation in

terms of amended award/ order dated 07.04.2011 to the

respondents come to the tune of Rs.85,74,725/- by calculating

interest thereupon upto the date of 28.07.2017. According to this

calculation, payment of compensation to respondents along with

interest upto the date of 31.10.2021, amounting to

Rs.1,13,95,294/- (Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount +

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (18 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

Rs.28,20,569/- interest amount) has already been paid. This

payment has been paid in furtherance to the interim order dated

05.10.2021, passed in this writ petition and now, no more amount

of compensation, as calculated under the orders impugned dated

13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019, is liable to be paid to respondents,

therefore, impugned orders deserve to be set aside to this extent.

In the written submissions, previously submitted by and on

behalf of the petitioners, which are available on record, reliance

has been placed on the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurpreet Singh Versus Union

of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court affirmed the “stagewise rule of appropriation” as laid down

by the Supreme Court in previous case of Prem Nath Kapur Vs.

National Fertilizers Corpn. of India ltd. [(1996) 2 SCC 71]

and held in Para No.53 as under:-

"53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the

essential ratio in Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation

being at different stages is justified though if at a

particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-

decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the

same on the general principle of appropriation, first

towards interest, then towards costs and then

towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is

indicated to be towards specified heads by the

judgment-debtor while making the deposit intimating

the decree-holder of his intention. We, thus, approve

the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of

appropriation."

8.2The further contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the

doctrine of merger does not apply, when the compensation of

acquired land, is enhanced by the Reference Court or by the High

Court or by the Supreme Court at the level of next award stage,

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (19 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

that too, after receipt of entire compensation with interest by the

awardee under the original award.

8.3According to the petitioners, respondents are not entitled to

reopen the entire transaction of compensation and after making

calculation of the compensation afresh at the rate of Rs.24,000/-

per bigha along with 30% solatium and interest thereupon payable

in terms of amended award dated 07.04.2011, then, to deduce

the received amount of compensation under the original award

against the interest.

8.4Thus, the contention of the petitioners is that the Civil Court

grossly erred in calculating the due compensation under the order

dated 13.07.2017 to the tune of Rs.3,14,47,182/- calculating the

interest upto 08.08.2017 and rejecting the calculation of due

compensation, as made by the petitioners to the tune of

Rs.85,74,725/-. Further, while denying to review/recall the order

dated 13.07.2017, calculating again the due compensation to the

tune of Rs.3,46,13,863/- with interest upto the date of

02.11.2019 under the order impugned dated 14.10.2019.

8.5Hence, prayer of petitioners is that the impugned orders are

not sustainable to the extent of calculating the compensation over

and above to the principal amount of due compensation of

Rs.85,74,725/- as made by the petitioners in the calculation chart

(Annexure-2).

9.1Per contra, on behalf of the respondents-Khatedars,

submission has been made that respondents may not be

discriminated by the petitioners-State, in respect of calculation

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (20 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

and payment of due compensation for their acquired land. Their

submission is that the land of Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, who is

deceased and survived by natural heirs Nathu, Hanuman and

others, situated in Village Kishanbag, Tehsil and District Jaipur,

was also acquired by the petitioner-State under the same award

dated 12.08.1983, whereunder the lands of respondents situated

at Village Beed Papad, Tehsil and District Jaipur, was acquired and

for the barani nature of acquired land, compensation was

determined at the same rate i.e Rs.12,000/- per bigha along with

solatium of 10% and 4% interest thereupon. Later on, the

compensation under award dated 12.08.1983, in respect of

acquired lands of Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, was enhanced and re-

determined by the competent authority under Reference

Acquisition Case No.47/1984 vide order dated 27.03.1992 at the

rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha along with solatium of 30% and

further, interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid from the

date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 till the date

of taking possession with further interest at the rate of 9% per

annum for the first year commencing from the date of taking

possession and then 15% for the remaining period until making

the actual payment of due compensation. The compensation

payable to Khatedar – Ghasi Ram under the original award dated

12.08.1983 had also been paid, but thereafter, when the

compensation was enhanced under the order dated 27.03.1992,

the recalculation of the compensation was made in the execution

application No.55/2012 and the recalculated amount of

compensation has been paid by the petitioner-State to Nathu,

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (21 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

Hanuman and others, who are legal heirs of Late Ghasi Ram,

pursuant to the orders dated 24.01.2017 and 07.01.2023 passed

in Execution Application No.55/2012. Therefore, on the principle of

parity and equality, the respondents, who are awardees under the

same award dated 12.08.1983 and the compensation payable to

them has also been redetermined by the competent authority vide

order dated 07.04.2011 at par with another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram

and same has been affirmed finally upto the Hon’ble Division

Bench of the High Court, hence, the petitioner-State may not

apply a different method or formula to calculate the due

compensation to the respondents.

9.2Their submission is that the petitioner-State is under a legal

obligation and bound to pay the compensation at the equal rate

and as per similar method of calculation i.e. respondents-

khatedars and legal heirs of another khatedar Mr. Ghasi Ram,

whose lands were acquired under the same notification and to

both the awardees, under the common award dated 12.08.1983,

compensation was enhanced at the similar rate for their similar

nature of acquired lands, hence, the calculation of balance amount

of unpaid compensation as made by the Civil Court in the orders

dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019, impugned herein, do not call

for any interference by the High Court in its jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9.3Their further submission is that the amount of compensation,

which was paid by the petitioner-State and received by the

respondents, under the original award dated 12.08.1983 has

rightly been deduced by the Civil Court while computing the

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (22 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

compensation under the amended award dated 07.04.2011

afresh, against the interest, as same was done by the State

Government in case of Khatedar-Ghasi Ram. Hence, the impugned

orders on the principle of ‘equity and parity’ do not suffer from

any infirmity or manifest illegality or jurisdictional error,

warranting interference therein by the High Court in its writ

jurisdiction.

9.4Their submission is that in the calculation as, made by the

Civil Court, nowhere interest upon interest has been calculated,

rather the compensation has rightly been calculated in terms of

the amended award dated 07.04.2011, which was passed based

on the order dated 27.03.1992 passed in Reference Case

No.47/1984 in respect of Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, to whom

compensation has already been paid by the petitioner-State, as

per the similar method of calculation of enhanced compensation.

9.5Therefore, according to the respondents, writ petition

deserves to be dismissed and the petitioners be directed to pay

the balance amount of compensation along with interest to the

respondents-Khatedars forthwith.

10.It has not been disputed from the side of the respondents

that out of the determined compensation under the orders

impugned, amount of Rs.1,13,95,294/- has been paid by the

petitioner-State in furtherance to the interim stay order dated

05.10.2021 and now, differential amount is required to be paid by

the petitioner-State to respondents along with interest at the rate

of 10% per annum w.e.f. 31.10.2021 onwards in terms of the

interim order dated 05.10.2021.

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (23 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

11.Heard and considered.

12.It is an admitted and undisputed fact that under the common

award dated 12.08.1983, 268 Bighas 15 Biswa lands of

respondents-khatedars located at Village Beed Papad and 68

Bighas and 9 Biswa land of one another Khatedar – Ghasi Ram

(Now deceased and represented through his legal heirs Nathu,

Hanuman and others) situated at Village Kishangarh Bagh, in the

Tehsil and District Jaipur, were acquired by the petitioners-State

and for the similar nature of Barani land, compensation was

determined at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per bigha with solatium at

the rate of 10% and interest at the rate of 4% thereupon. Later

on, the compensation of acquired land of Khatedar-Ghasi Ram was

re-determined by the competent authority at the rate of

Rs.24,000/- per bigha with 30% solatium and interest at the rate

of 12% as per scheme of Act, 1894 under Reference Land

Acquisition Case No. 47/1984 vide order dated 27.03.1992 and

based on this order, compensation payable to respondents-

Khatedars for their acquired land was also revised/re-determined

by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 07.04.2011

passed in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 28A of

the Act of 1984 (as amended), as such original award came to be

amended vide order dated 07.04.2011.

13.It is not in dispute that the order dated 07.04.2011, has

attained finality and petitioners-State is required to pay

compensation to the respondents-Khatedars for their acquired 268

Bighas 15 Biswa land in terms thereof i.e. at the rate of Rs.

24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha and 30%

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (24 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

solatium thereupon instead of 10% as per Section 23(2) of the Act

of 1984 and future interest at the rate of 12% from the date of

notification under Section 4 of the Act, till the date of taking

possession as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, with future interest

at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking

possession and then, at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period

as per Section 34 of the Act of 1894, instead of a general rate of

interest at the rate of 4%, as awarded under the original award

dated 12.08.1983.

14.Thereafter, order dated 07.04.2011 has also been affirmed

by learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.04.2012 and

directions were issued to implement the same within three

months.

15.Then, order dated 10.04.2012 has been affirmed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 19.02.2013.

16.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court, while

dismissing the Special Appeals, filed by the State, and affirming

the order of learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2012, has clearly

held and observed in its order dated 19.02.2013 (supra) that

" there appears no justification to adopt different standards as

regards payment of enhanced compensation including solatium &

interest to other khatedars/land owners, who too were covered

under the same notification whose land was also acquired and

possession was taken over by the appropriate government on

28.08.1982 and this what the learned Single Judge noticed in its

order impugned and rejected the contention advanced by the

counsel for appellant-State." The Division Bench further clearly

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (25 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

held that, " we are of the view that once enhanced compensation

was awarded to one of the khatedar/land owner all other similarly

situated are also entitled for the same benefits in terms thereof U/

s 28A of the Act and as regards rate of interest, the

khatedar/owner is entitled to in terms of Sec.34 of the Act".

17.It is noteworthy that compensation at the enhanced rate as

per order dated 27.03.1992 for khatedar-Mr. Ghasi Ram was

calculated afresh in the execution application No.55/2012 and

amount of compensation paid to him under the original award

dated 12.08.1983 was deduced against the interest amount and

then the calculated amount of compensation has been denied to

be paid by the State authorities.

Thus, the factual position, which has emerged, has not been

and cannot be disputed that the compensation for acquired lands

of the respondents is required to be paid by the petitioner-State at

the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- per bigha

along with solatium at the rate of 30% thereupon and interest as

per Section 23 (1-A), (2) and Section 34 of the Act, as per

amended award/ order dated 07.04.2011 and due compensation

to the respondents by the petitioners-State should be calculated

as per the same method and in the same terms as has been

calculated and paid by petitioner-State to legal heirs of deceased

Khatedar – Ghasi Ram, for their acquired land, in terms of the

order dated 27.03.1992, pursuant to the one and common award

dated 12.08.1983.

18.From the side of petitioners, a copy of order dated

24.01.2017 (Annexure-16) was placed on record along with

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (26 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

application (2/2021) dated 19.08.2021, which has been taken on

record vide order dated 06.09.2021. A perusal of this order dated

24.01.2017 reveals that same was passed by the Civil Court in

Execution No.19/2015 in case of Nathuram Gurjar Vs. Secretary,

Department of Water Resources and Ors. In this order, calculation

of compensation was made as payable to Nathuram Gurjar, who

happens to be son of Khatedar- Ghasi Ram Gurjar, whose 68.9

Bigha land of Khasra No.27 & 28 located at Village Kishangarh

Bagh, Tehsil and District Jaipur was acquired under the same

award dated 12.08.1983. A perusal of the order further reveals

that under the award dated 12.08.1983, compensation for the

acquired lands of khatedar-Ghasi Ram was ordered to be paid at

the rate of Rs.12,000/- per bigha, but same was later on revised

and re-determined at the rate Rs.24,000/- per bigha, then further

at the rate of Rs. 29,400/- per bigha and 50,000/- per bigha. The

compensation determined under the award dated 12.08.1983 had

been paid by the State Government and received by the Khatedars

prior thereto.

19.It appears that in case of Nathu Ram as well, from the side

of State-Department, similar stand was taken, as has been taken

in the present case, for calculation of the compensation as per the

amended award dated 07.04.2011, but while calculating the

compensation as per enhanced/revised rate, in furtherance to the

order of competent authority dated 27.03.1992, compensation

already paid by the petitioner-State under the original award

dated 12.08.1983 was deduced against the interest, while

determining the compensation afresh as per the enhanced rate

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (27 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

along with solatium of 30% and interest payable thereupon under

the provisions of Section 23(1A), 2 and Section 34 of the Act of

1894.

20.It would be apropos to reproduce the relevant portion of the

order dated 24.01.2017 hereunder for ready reference, which

would obviously throw light on the issue involved herein in this

writ petition:-

"mijksDr nksuksa x.kuk pkVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] lkFk gh is'k

fd;s x;s nLrkostkr ,oa fyf[kr cgl dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k

esa fu"d"kZ :i ls ns[kk tkosa rks dqN fcUnq bl izdkj ds gS] ftu ij i{kdkjksa

ds e/; fookn ugha gS] tSls fd

1- dqy 68 ch?kk 9 fcLok Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa vokMZ tkjh gksuk

2- 50]000@& :i;s dh nj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk

3- vokMZ dh fnukad 12-08-1983

mDr fcUnq bl izdkj ds gS] ftuesa i{kdkjksa ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk

fookn ugha gSA izdj.k esa x.kuk ds fcUnq ij eq[; :i ls fookn izdV gqvk

gS] mlh ds vuqdze esa izkFkhZ ukFkqjke dh vksj ls is'k fd;s x;s x.kuk pkVZ dk

voyksdu djus ds i'pkr~ tgka rd izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is'k fd;s x;s

x.kuk pkVZ dk iz'u gS] mfpr izrhr gksrk gS] tks fd fuEu izdkj ls gS%&

1- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 12-09-2011 ls la'kksf/kr nj :i;s

50]000 :i;s izfr ch?kk ls 68 ch?kk 9 fcLok dh jde

34]22]500-00 :i;s

2- mDr jde ij fnukad 04-02-1982 ls fnukad 28-08-1982 rd 12 izfr'kr

okf"kZd nj ls 206 fnu ds C;kt dh jkf'k&

2]31]790-00 :i;s

3- mDr jde ij 30 izfr'kr dh nj ls lksysf'k;e jkf'k

10]26]750-00 :i;s

dqy eqvkotk jkf'k dk ;ksx 46]81]042-00 :i;s

4- mDr jde ij 1 o"kZ fnukad 28-08-1982 ls fnukad 27-08-1983 rd 9

izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt 4]21]293-00 :i;s

5- fnukad 28-08-1983 ls 5-10-1985 rd 2 o"kZ 1 ekg 8 fnu dk C;kt 15

izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls 14]77]413-00 :i;s

6- fnukad 05-10-1985 dks 12000@& :i;s izfr ch?kk dh nj ls foHkkx }kjk

fd;s x;s Hkqxrku dks C;kt esa ls lek;ksftr

14]77]413-00&10]15]133-00=4]62]280-00 :i;s

'ks"k jde 55]64]615-00 :i;s

7- fnukad 06-10-1985 ls 31-12-1993 rd 8 o"kZ 85 fnu dk C;kt 15 izfr'kr

okf"kZd nj ls 68]71]918-00 :i;s

8- vizkFkhZ flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk fnukad 18-12-1993 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jde dks

izFker% C;kt esa ls lek;sktu

68]71]918-00&44]35]000-00=24]36]918-00 :i;s

'ks"k jde 80]01]533-00 :i;s

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (28 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

9- fnukad 01-01-1994 ls 25-11-1994 rd vFkkZr 329 fnu dk C;kt 15

izfr'kr nj ls

10]88]851-00 :i;s

10- vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk fnukad 25-11-1994 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jde dk C;kt

esa lek;kstu

10]88]851-00&40]98]31-00=6]79]020-00 :i;s

'ks"k jde 86]80]553-00 :i;s

11- fnukad 25-11-1994 ls 20-07-2003 dk C;kt 8 o"kZ 4 ekg 6 fnu dk 15

izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt

1]08]64]515-00 :i;s

12- vizkFkhZx.k foHkkx }kjk fnukad 21-07-2003 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dk

C;kt esa lek;kstu

108]64]515-00&37]97]064-00=70]67]451-00 :i;s

'ks"k jde 1]57]41]004-00 :i;s

13- fnukad 21-07-2003 ls 12-02-2004 rd 8 ekg dk C;kt 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd

nj ls

15]52]537-00 :i;s

14- vizkFkhZx.k foHkkx }kjk fnukad 12-02-2004 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dk

C;kt esa lek;kstu

15]52]537-00&3]29]739-00=12]22]798-00 :i;s

'ks"k jde 1]69]63]802-00 :i;s

15- fnukad 12-02-2004 ls fnukad 03-09-2012 rd 15 izfr'kr dh nj ls C;kt

21]840]680-00 :i;s

16- vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk fnukad 03-09-2012 dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dk C;kt

esa lek;kstu

21]840]680-00&80]83]544-00=1]37]57]136-00:i;s

'ks"k jde 3]07]23]908-00 :i;s

17- fnukad 04-09-2012 ls lEHkkfor Hkqxrku frfFk 15-01-2017 rd 4 o"kZ 4

ekg 11 fnu dk 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt

20]10]94]27-00 :i;s

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

dqy ns; jkf'k 5]08]33]335-00

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

fnukad 15-01-2017 ds i'pkr~ izfrfnu dk C;kt 12]626@&:i;s

vizkFkhZ flapkbZ foHkkx dh vksj ls le;&le; ij tks jkf'k muds }kjk

tek djkuk izdV fd;k x;k] og fuEukuqlkj gS&

¼v½ pSd la[;k 627255 fnukad 28-09-1985 }kjk

12000@& :i;s izfr ch?kk dh nj ls fd;k x;k Hkqxrku

1015133@&:i;s

¼c½ pSd la[;k 522627 fnukad 18-12-1993

pSd la[;k 934560 fnukad 25-11-1994

4435000@&:i;s

409831@&:i;s

¼l½ pSd la[;k 870345 fnukad 21-07-2003

pSd la[;k 877324 fnukad 12-02-2004

3797064@&:i;s

329739@&:i;s

¼n½ fnukad 03-09-2012 dks fd;k x;k Hkqxrku 8083544@&:i;s

fnukad 03-09-2012 rd dqy Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k 18070311@&:i;s

mDr Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls Lohdkj fd;k

x;k gS vkSj izdV fd;k x;k gS fd mijksDr jkf'k vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk tek

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (29 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

djk;h x;h Fkh] fdUrq eq[; fookn mDr jkf'k ds lek;kstu ds lEcU/k esa gS

fd mDr jkf'k loZizFke C;kt dh jkf'k esa ls lek;ksftr gksxh ;k ewy jkf'k esa

ls] blds lEcU/k esa Hkh fu"d"kZ :i ls ns[kk tkosa rks Lo;a foHkkx us dbZ LFkkuksa

ij bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tks x.kuk dh xbZ gS og mfpr gS vkSj

lek;kstu loZizFke C;kt dh jkf'k esa ls gh gksxk] blds lEcU/k esa tSlk fd

iwoZ esa blh U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 28-07-2016 dks fd;s x;s vkns'k esa mYys[k

fd;k x;k gS fd&

tgka rd tks dSydqys'ku] vkns'k fnukad 03-10-2015 esa dh xbZ gS] og

C;kt ij C;kt tksM+rs gq, dh xbZ gS vkSj xyr :i ls dh xbZ gSA bl lEcU/

k esa Hkh ns[kk tkosa rks Lo;a jktLFkku ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds i=

dzekad ,Q¼24½@,,l@vkbZ@lSy@10@3100 fnukad 01-10-2012 esa ;g

Li"V :i ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd

^^vc d`"kd }kjk eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] flfoy

U;k;k/kh'k] t;iqj ls btjk; izkFkZuk i= 53@2012 dh

x.kuk 'khV esa C;kt dh x.kuk izfro"kZ ¼C;kt ij

C;kt½ ds vk/kkj ij ugha dh xbZ gSA blesa Hkqxrku dh

xbZ frfFk dks cdk;k C;kt dks ewy jkf'k esa lfEefyr

djrs gq, C;kt dk vkadyu dj izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

bl btjk; izkFkZuk i= esa fnukad 30-03-12 rd dh

x.kuk dj 37548682@&:i;s ,oa 6900@&:i;s

izfrfnu C;kt ds Hkqxrku pkgk gSA bl vk/kkj ij is'kh

fnukad 28-09-12 rd dk 182 fnol dk C;kt :i;s

1255800@&tksMus ij dqy jkf'k 38804482@& :i;s

dk Hkqxrku pkgk gSA vr% iz'uxr izdj.k esa fnu

izfrfnu yxus okys C;kt ls jkT;i{k dk cpko djrs

gq, ,oa dqdhZ okjUV dk bUrtkj ugha djds mDr jkf'k

ek- U;k;ky; esa tek djus gsrq ctV en

8674&101&¼01½ vafdr dj vfoyEc x.kuk LVsVesUV

e; pSdfyLV rS;kj dj Hksts foyEc dh fLFkfr esa

lEcfU/kr dk Li"Vhdj.k izkIr dj viuh Li"V

vfHk'ka"kk lfgr fHktok;sA **

bl izdkj Lo;a jktLFkku ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx dh vksj ls

mDr i= esa Li"V :i ls ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd C;kt dh x.kuk

C;kt ij C;kt ds vk/kkj ij ugha dh xbZ vkSj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk

mfpr gSA

bl izdj Lo;a jktLFkku ljdkj] ftyk lalk/ku foHkkx }kjk gh bl

rF; dks Li"V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd x.kuk mfpr gSA blds

mijkUr Hkh izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is'k fd;s x;s nLrkostkr dk voyksdu

fd;k tkosa rks ,usDpj&4 tks fd foRr foHkkx dh fVIi.kh gS vkSj lgk;d

ys[kkf/kdkjh foRr }kjk nh xbZ fVIi.kh ds vuqlkj

^^foHkkx ds lgk;d fof/k ijke'khZ o eq[; fof/k ijke'khZ

us vuqPNsn 433&434@,u ij viuh jk; nh gS muds

vuqlkj fof/k ds lkekU; fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj&^^C;kt ij

C;kt ns; ugha gksrk gS fdUrq fdlh _.kh }kjk Li"V

izko/kku ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkqxrku ds le; ;g

Li"V djuk gksrk gs fd fn;k tk jgk Hkqxrku izFker%

ewy esa ls dkVk tkuk gS vFkok C;kt esa lsA ;fn _.kh

us ,slk Li"V mYys[k Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa ugha fd;k gS

rks lkekU;r% Hkqxrku dh jkf'k izFker% C;kt esa

lek;ksftr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj bUgha fl)kUrksa ds

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (30 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

vk/kkj ij bl ekeysa esa ys[k gS fd foHkkx us tc tc Hkh

Hkqxrku fd;k gS ;g dk'rdkjksa dks voxr ugha djk;k gS

fd veqd jkf'k C;kt isVs ugha gksdj ewy/ku ds isVs fd;k

tk jgk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa :i;s 40]89]928@&dh

x.kuk lgh izrhr gksrh gSA**

fof/k foHkkx us vuqPNsn 438&442@,u ij viuh jk; nh

gSA vuqPNsn 440@,u ij fof/k foHkkx us 434@,u dh

foHkkxh; DLR dh jk; ls lger gksrs gq, mYysf[kr

fd;k gS fd mPpre U;k;ky; ds ,d fu.kZ; esa ;g

O;oLFkk nh xbZ fd ;fn igys ls gh ;g Li"V ugha fd;k

x;k gS fd jkf'k fdlh isVs tek dh tk jgh gS rks og

igys C;kt esa lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA vkxs vuqPNsn

441@,u ij mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd - On the basis of

law propounded by S.C. in AIR 1970 SC 161 Meghraj

Vs. Bajabai I have no option but to agree with the

opinion of ALR and DLR. Now this is for the AD to take

an appropriate decision.

bl izdkj Lo;a foRr foHkkx dh mijksDr fVIi.kh] ftlesa dh ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ds

vuqlkj ;fn ;g Li"V ugha fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkqxrku ds le; mDr jfk'k

fdl isVs lek;ksftr gksxh rks og loZizFke C;kt esa ls gh lek;ksftr gksrh

gSA izLrqr ekeysa esa ,slk dgha izdV ugha gksrk gS fd bl izdkj ds dksbZ

funsZ'k dk'rdkjksa dks fn;s x;s gksaA bl dkj.k og igys C;kt esa gh

lek;ksftr gksxh] bl rF; dks ekuk x;k gS vkSj blh fVIi.kh esa vkxs ;g

Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd

^^mDr izLrkoksa esa vc foHkkx }kjk C;kt ij C;kt rks

ugha fn;k x;k gS] ijUrq fof/k foHkkx dh jk; ds

vuqlkj ljdkj }kjk tek djkbZ xbZ jkf'k dks loZizFke

C;kt esa lek;kstu fd;k gS rFkk ckn esa ewy/ku esa

lek;ksftr fd;k gSA

U;k;ky; ds dqdhZ vkns'k dh ikyuk esa mDr

jkf'k dh Hkqxrku lgefr nsrs gq, i=koyh foRr

¼ctV½ foHkkx dks fMdzhVy en esa vfrfjDr Lohd`fr

gsrq Hkstk tkuk mfpr gksxkA**

vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk dqdhZ vkns'k esa nh xbZ jkf'k dks mfpr ekurs

gq, Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa Lohd`fr gsrq Hkh jk; nh xbZ FkhA

bl izdkj izdj.k esa is'k dh xbZ x.kukvksa ds lEcU/k esa fu"d"kZ :i

ls ns[kk tkosa rks izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is'k dh xbZ x.kuk pkVZ mfpr

gS] D;ksafd bl lEcU/k esa Lo;a foRr foHkkx ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds ifji=ksa

ds vuqlkj Hkh bls mfpr ekuk x;k gSA vuko';d :i ls iwoZ esa r;

fcunqvksa ij Hkh ckj&ckj fookn mRiUUk fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj mijksDr ds

vuqdze esa x.kuk is'k dh xbZ gS] tks mfpr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA ,slh

fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ukFkwjke dh vksj ls is'k dh xbZ x.kuk pkVZ ds vuqlj

izkFkhZ ukFkwjke Hkqxrku izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA"

(emphasis supplied)

21.It has been pointed out by the counsel for respondents, on

the strength of documents, Annexure-6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 placed on

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (31 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

record that in execution proceedings in Execution Petition

No.55/2012 (19/2015) for recovery of unpaid amount of

compensation in terms of order dated 24.01.2017, entire amount

has been paid by the State Government to legal heirs of khatedar-

Ghasi Ram, after taking decision at departmental level that it

would be proper to make payment of compensation as determined

by the Civil Court as per enhanced rate/amended award, after

adjustment of the amount already paid by the State Government

under the original award dated 12.08.1983 against the accured

interest. The factum of payment of entire enhanced compensation

made by State to the legal heirs of khatedar- Ghasi Ram, has not

been denied from the side of petitioners as well.

22.Here, at this juncture, it is noteworthy and clear from the

record that in the present matter as well, in respect of making

payment of the enhanced compensation as determined by the Civil

Courts under order dated 14.10.2019 in Execution Petition

No.56/2012 a decision was taken by the State Government for

making payment accordingly, which transpires from the letter

dated 06.07.2021 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of

Rajasthan and further financial approval for the entire unpaid

amount as calculated in the order dated 14.10.2019 by the Civil

Court, was also granted, but thereafter due to passing the interim

order dated 05.10.2021, only an amount of Rs. 1,13,95,294/-

(Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount + Rs.28,20,569/- interest

amount) has been deposited by the State Government and

differential amount due as per order dated 14.10.2019 despite

grant of financial solatium, same has not been deposited. In terms

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (32 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

of the order dated 05.10.2021 (supra), same carry interest at the

rate of 6% per annum. For ready reference, letter dated

06.07.2021 is being reproduced hereunder:-

jktLFkku ljdkj

ty lalk/ku foHkkx jkT; ty lalk/ku vk;kstuk]

bfUnjk xka/kh ugj ,oa lh-,-Mh- foHkkx

fo"k;%& etkj ck¡/k gsrq vokIr dh xbZ Hkqfe ds eqvkotk jkf'k Hkqxrku ds

lEca/k esa nk;j btjk; la[;k 56@2012 Jhefr HkkSyh ifRu Lo- HkkSjhyky

o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-10-2019A

iz'kklfud fu.kZ; fnukad 07-05-1992 dh vuqikyuk esa vekuh'kkg

ukys ij fLFkr etkj ck¡/k dh Hkjko {kerk ¼,Q-Vh-,y½ ds Mwcs esa vkus

okyh Hkwfe ¼275 ch?kk 3 fcLok½ dks NksM+dj 'ks"k Hkwfe ¼1145 ch?kk 5 fcLok½

dk dCtk QnZ Hkwfe fnukad 08-06-1992 dks t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj

dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;k FkkA dCtk QnZ Hkwfe nLrkost esa ;g Li"V vadu

fd;k x;k gS fd] ^^vc Hkwfe ds gLrkUrfjr fnukad ls Hkwfe dk leLr

LokfeRo t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj dk gksxk ,oa izkf/kdj.k ds i=

Øekad tfoizk@ful@tksu@6@92@2529 fnukad 07-05-1992 ds vuqlkj

t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj flapkbZ foHkkx dks mudh Hkwfe ds pqdk;s

x;s@pqdkbZ tkus okyh jkf'k o ml ij ns; C;kt dk Hkqxrku djsxkA^^

etkj ck¡/k gsrq vokIr dh xbZ Hkqfe ds eqvkotk jkf'k Hkqxrku ds

lEca/k esa nk;j btjk; la[;k 56@2012 Jhefr HkkSyh ifRu Lo- HkkSjhyky

o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ofj"B flfoy

U;k;k/kh'k t;iqj egkuxj t;iqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-10-2019 ls

izkFkhZ dks jkf'k :- 34613863@& dk Hkqxrku djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA

vr% btjk; la[;k 56@2012 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s

mDr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-10-2019 dh ikyuk esa eqvkotk jkf'k ds Hkqxrku dh

dk;Zokgh t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds Lrj ls djk;k tkuk visf{kr gSA

layXu%& foLr``r fooj.kA

izeq[k 'kklu lfpo"

23.It is worthy to note here that in the order dated 13.07.2017,

the Civil Court adopted and followed the same method of

calculation, to calculate the due compensation as per enhanced

rate in terms of amended award dated 07.04.2011 and for

adjustment of the compensation, already paid by the State under

the original award dated 12.08.1983, as was applied while

calculation of the enhanced compensation, for awarding the

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (33 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased khatedar- Ghasi

Ram in Execution Petition No. 55/2012 (19/2015). To justify the

same, learned Civil Court has recorded a fact finding that since the

calculation of compensation under the original award dated

12.08.1983 was not made as per the correct rate of compensation

for acquired land nor the solatium and interest thereupon was

calculated as per Act, 1894, therefore, while making afresh

calculation as per the amended award and as per the enhanced

rate of compensation of Rs.24,000/- with solatium of 30%

thereupon and interest as per scheme of Act of 1894, the

erstwhile paid amount by State deserves to be deduced against

the interest only.

24.It may be noted here that this is the same method as was

applied by the State Government itself in making calculation of the

enhanced award, payable to legal heirs of khatedar-Ghasi Ram as

per the revised/re-determined rate of compensation under order

dated 27.03.1992.

25.Otherwise also, when the calculation of compensation made

as per the rate prescribed in the original award dated 12.08.1983

was not held correct, then, it may not be said that amount paid by

the State as per the original award was considered against the

principal compensation. For such charge (Annexure-1), was

rejected by the Civil Court and calculation of enhanced

compensation as per amended award dated 07.04.2011 and the

amount, paid by the State under the previous award dated

12.08.1983, was adjusted against interest.

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (34 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

26.For ready reference, it would not be out of place to

reproduce the calculation made by the Civil Court in the order

dated 13.07.2017 for the compensation payable to respondents

and deductions as has been made for the amount already paid by

the State Government to the respondents under the original award

dated 12.08.1983:-

"vc bu fLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZx.k ds lEiw.kZ izdj.k dks ns[ksa rks

izkFkhZx.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds i'pkr~~ Lo;a dh fofHkUu vokIr dh

xbZ [kljk uEcj ls fHkUu&fHkUu Hkwfe vFkkZr dqy vokIr dh xbZ dqy

268 ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe gsrq :i;s 24000@& ek= izfr ch?kk dh nj

ls eqvkotk jkf’k vkSj ml ij foKfIr tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls dCtk

ysus dh frfFk rd 12 izfr’kr okf"kZd nj ls jkf’k ,oa lksysf’k;e jkf’k

ds :i esa 30 izfr’kr jkf’k izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh fn[kkbZ nsrs gSaA bu

fLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa Hkh mHk; i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn ugha gS

rFkk Lohd``r fLFkfr gSA bl fLFkfr ds i'pkr~ ~ tks x.kuk i=

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mldks ns[ksa rks vizkFkhZx.k

}kjk vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe dh eqvkotk nj esa iwoZ esa iznRr eqvkotk

nj ,oa ckn esa U;k;ky; ds vkns’k }kjk iznRr eqvkotk nj ds varj

dh x.kuk djrs gq, izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks mfpr ugha gSA bl

lEcU/k esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk tks x.kuk djrs gq, x.kuk pkVZ izLrqr fd;k

x;k gS og iw.kZr;k mfpr fn[kkbZ nsrk gS] vFkkZr izkFkhZx.k 268 ch?kk

15 fcLok Hkwfe dh eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s 24]000@& ek= ek= izfr ch?

kk dh nj dqy eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s 6]45]0000@& ek= rFkk mDr

jde ij 12 izfr’kr okf"kZr dh nj ls 206 fnu dh vFkkZr jkf’k :i;s

4]36]831@& ek= ,oa 30 izfr’kr lksysf’k;e jkf’k :i;s

19]35]000@& ek= gksrh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dqy ewy eqvkotk

jkf’k :i;s 88]21]331@& ek= izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh fn[kkbZ nsrs gSA

pwafd vizkFkhZx.k flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk izkjEHk ls izkFkhZx.k dks izkIr gksus

okyh ewy eqvkotk jkf’k ds lEcU/k esa x.kuk =qfViw.kZ dh xbZ gSA vr%

mudh x.kuk pkVZ yS’kek= Hkh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha jgrh gS]

ysfdu izkFkhZx.k ukFkw oxS0 }kjk dqy eqvkotk jkf’k ds i’pkr~ tks

C;kt dh x.kuk ,oa mUgsa le;&le; ij flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk iznRr

dh xbZ jkf’k dk lek;kstu lEcU/kh tks x.kuk dh xbZ gS] og Hkh

mfpr ugha gS] D;ksafd izkFkhZx.k }kjk blesa C;kt ij C;kt dh x.kuk

ds lkFk&lkFk x.kuk Hkh =qfViw.kZ dh xbZ gSA vr% bl lEcU/k esa

izkFkhZx.k }kjk dqy eqvkotk jkf’k ds i’pkr~ izLrqr dh xbZ x.kuk

Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dh tks lEiw.kZ 268 ch?kk 15 fcLok

Hkwfe :i;s 24]000@& ek= izfr ch?kk dh nj ls vokIr dh xbZ gS]

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (35 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

mlds lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZx.k flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk le;&le; ij

iznRr dh xbZ jkf’k dks lek;ksftr djrs gq, x.kuk djsa rks og fuEu

izdkj vkrh gS&

,- 268 ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe@eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s 4000@ izfr ch?kk dqy

jkf’k

64]50]000@&

ch- 4-02-82 ls 28-8-82 rd 12 izfr’kr okf"kZd nj ls 206 fnu dh

vfrfjDr jkf’k

4]36]831@&

lh-30 izfr’kr lksysf’k;e jkf’k 19]35]000@&

dqy eqvkotk jkf’k 8821831@&

Mh-,d o"kZ ¼28-8-82 ls 27-8-83½ dk 9 izfr’kr okf"kZd C;kt%&7]93]965@&

bZ-2 o"kZ 7 ekg 8 fnu ¼28-8-83 ls 6-4-86½ dk 15 izfr’kr okf"kZd C;kt3447462@&

vFkkZr dqy C;kt jkf’k ¼Mh+bZ½= 4241427@&

,QflapkbZ foHkkx }kjk 7-04-86 dks vnk jkf'k 3118442@&

th¼,Q½ dks lek;kstu ds i’pkr~ 'ks"k C;kt jkf'k1122985@&

,p4 ekg 11 fnu ¼6-04-86 ls 19-8-86½ rd dk 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt482125@&

¼th+,p½ vFkkZr dqy cdk;k C;kt= 1605110@&

vkbZ20-8-86 dks flapkbZ foHkkx }kjk Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k949592@&

ts¼vkbZ½ dks lek;kstu ds i'pkr~ C;kt jkf'k 655518@&

ds27 o"kZ 3 ekg 16 fnu ¼20-8-86 ls 7-12-13½ dk 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd

C;kt jkf'k

35999875@&

vFkkZr dqy C;kt ¼ts+ds½ 36655393@&

,y-7-12-13 dks foHkkx }kjk fd;k Hkqxrku 18288000@&

,e-¼,y½ dks lek;kstu ds i'pkr~ 'ks"k C;kt jkf'k18367393@&

,u-7-1-14 dks foHkkx }kjk fd;k x;k Hkqxrku 385707@&

vks¼,u½ dks lek;kstu ds i'pkr~ 'ks"k C;kt jkf'k 17981686@&

ih8-1-14 ls 8-817 rd ¼laHkkfor Hkqxrku frfFk rd½ 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd

C;kt

4643625@&

vFkkZr dqy C;kt ¼vks+ih½ 22625311@&

D;w-dqy eqvkotk jkf'k = 8821831@&+C;kt = 22625311 31447142@&

bl izdkj mijksDr foospukuqlkj vizkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 yxk;r

3 dh vksj ls tks x.kuk izi= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] og yS’kek= Hkh

Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS ,oa lkFk gh lkFk izkFkhZx.k dh vksj

ls tks x.kuk izi= is’k fd;k x;k gS og dqy eqvkotk jkf’k :i;s

88]21]831@& ek= dh voLFkk rd va’kr% Lohdkj fd;s tkus ,oa

rRi’pkr~ C;kt x.kuk lEcU/kh izi= vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS

vkSj C;kt x.kuk mijksDrkuqlkj dh tkdj bl voLFkk ij izkFkhZx.k

vizkFkhZx.k ls :i;s 3]14]47]142@& ek= izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh fn[kkbZ

nsrs gSaA vizkFkhZx.k dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os mijksDrkuqlkj

izkFkhZx.k dks jkf’k dh vnk;xh fu;ekuqlkj djsaA"

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (36 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

27.It is further noteworthy that the petitioners-State did not

challenge the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Civil Court

before the Higher Forum at the first instance, rather only chose to

file an application dated 08.08.2017 seeking to review/recall the

same by the Civil Court itself. During hearing of the application for

recalling/review, when the issue of adopting two different methods

of calculation by the State Government, to calculate the enhanced

award differently in the present case, then made in case of

Nathulal & Ors. Vs. Legal Representatives of deceased khatedar-

Ghasi Ram, came to force, learned Civil Court passed a specific

order dated 03.04.2018. In this order, it was clearly held that the

order dated 13.07.2017 has been passed on merits, hence, in the

calculation of due compensation made therein, no recall/ review

can be made except to make some clerical or arithmetical

corrections within scope of Section 152 CPC. It was also noted

specifically that the State Government has not assailed the order

dated 13.07.2017 before higher forum and same has attained

finality. The copy of the order dated 03.04.2018 is also available

on record and it would not be out of place to reproduce the same

hereunder:-

"odhy i{kdkjku mifLFkrA mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls bl

U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 13-07-2017 dks fjdkWy@fjO;w

djus ij cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh ,oa fyf[kr cgl dk

voyksdu fd;k x;kA

en;wu dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= esa eqvkotk jkf'k o

C;kt jkf'k ds lEcU/k esa tks vk{ksi mBk;s x;s gS os bl LVst

ij nLrkosth lk{; ds vHkko esa Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha

ik;s tkrs gS] D;ksafd bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 13-07-

2017 ds fo:) mldh vksj ls dksbZ vihy] fjohtu vkfn

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (37 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA blfy, xq.kkoxq.k ij vkns'k fnukad 13-

07-2017 ds iqu% ijh{k.k ds dksbZ fof/kd vk/kkj ugha gSA

U;k;ky; dsoy /kkjk 152 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr

fyfidh; o x.kukRed =qfV dks gh lq/kkj ldrk gSA

i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s izkFkZuk i= ,oa fyf[kr

cgl vkfn ds voyksdu ls mDr izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k

gsrq i{kdkjku ls fuEu fLFkfr 'kiFk i= ij Li"V djk;k

tkuk vko';d gS%&

1- en~;wu o fMdzhnkj 'kiFk i= }kjk Li"V djsa fd D;k bl

U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 13-07-2017 esa dksbZ fyfidh; ;k

x.kukRed =qfV gS\ ;fn gka rks D;k\

2- en~;wu 'kiFk i= }kjk Li"V djsa fd D;k ^^ukFkwjke** ls

lacaf/kr vokfIr o eqvkotk dh dk;Zokgh esa en~;wu }kjk mls

fofHkUu le;ksa ij Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dks C;kt jkf'k esa

de dj 'ks"k C;kt ,oa ewy jkf'k dks tksM+dj C;kt dh

x.kuk dh xbZ Fkh vFkok ugha\

3- en~;wu 'kiFk i= }kjk Li"V djsa fd ^^ukFkwjke** ls

lEcfU/kr ekeys o bl ekeysa dh vokfIr lEcU/kh

dk;Zokgh ,d gh uksfVfQds'ku }kjk dh xbZ Fkh ,oa D;k

ukFkwjke ds ekeysa esa fof/k o foRr foHkkkx }kjk Hkqxrku dh

xbZ jkf'k dh x.kuk nh xbZ jkf'k dks C;kt jkf'k esa

lek;ksftr djrs gq, 'ks"k C;kt o ewy jde tksMdj vkxkeh

C;kt dh x.kuk 'ks"k C;kt o ewy jkf'k ds ;ksx ij dh xbZ \

;fn gka rks fMdzhnkj dks mDrkuqlkj Hkqxrku D;ksa ugha fd;k

tk jgk gS ,oa mldk ekeyk fdl izdkj ^^ukFkwjke** ls fHkUu

gS\

bl ckcr Li"V mRrj fn;k tkosaA

i=koyh okLrs is'k gksus 'kiFk i= fMdzhnkj o e~;wu

fnukad 20-04-16 dks is'k gksA"

(emphasis supplied)

28.It may be noted here that the order dated 03.04.2018 has

not been questioned by the petitioners herein in the present writ

petition, nor any specific reply/explanation to the queries put forth

by the Civil Court, more particularly, in respect of point No.3,

mentioned hereinabove, was/is submitted by the State

Government, hence, taking note of such stand of the petitioners-

State, learned Civil Court passed the order dated 14.10.2019

wherein not only the calculation of amended award as made in the

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (38 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

order dated 13.07.2017 was affirmed but since, an arithmetical

mistake of not calculating the interest of one month from

08.12.2013 to 07.01.2014 in the order dated 13.07.2017 came to

notice and the interest of future period up to 02.11.2019 was re-

calculated therein. There appears no dissimilarity and calculation

of enhanced compenstiaon so also adjustment of amount paid by

State under the original award has been deduced against the

interest accrued upon the calculated amount of enhanced

compensation, applying the same methodology, as was applied in

calculating the enhanced compensation of another khatedar

Nathuram, legal heir of Ghasi Ram in the order dated 24.01.2017

(supra). The chart of re-calculation, finds place in the order dated

14.10.2019 itself and according to this calculation the due and

unpaid compensation with solatium and interest as on 02.11.2019

comes to the tune of Rs. 3,46,13,863/-.

29.It is important to note that in the impugned orders, the

deduction of compensation paid by the State Government, in

furtherance to the original award dated 12.08.1983 has been

made in the same manner as was made by the State Government

and accepted by the Civil Court, while calculating the enhanced

compensation in case of Execution Petition No. 55/2012 relating to

acquired land of khatedar-Ghasi Ram through his legal

representatives Nathu and others.

30.Having perused the calculation, as made by the Civil Court in

the orders dated 13.07.2017 and 14.10.2019, in the considered

opinion of this Court, it is not a case where the interest upon

interest has been calculated nor it is a case that the Civil Court

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (39 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

has breached the rule of appropriation as laid down in case of

Prem Nath Kapur (supra) and affirmed in case of Gurpreet Singh

(supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Civil Court has not

erred in rejected the calculation as per chart (Annexure-2),

submitted by the petitioners-State based on the principle of equity

and maintaining parity with the calculation made in case of Nathu

Ram. Thus, the contentions made by and on behalf of petitioners-

State are hereby rejected.

31.In the opinion of this Court, it is a clear case where the

calculation of compensation as per amended award/order dated

07.04.2011 has been made properly and the amount paid by the

State Government and received by the respondents-khatedars

under the original award dated 12.08.1983 has been deduced in

the same manner against the interest, as was deduced by the

State Government itself and followed by the Civil Court while

calculating the compensation as per the revised/enhanced rate for

the acquired lands of khatedar-Ghasi Ram (Now deceased and

represented through his legal representatives Nathu and others) in

execution application No.55/2012 (19/2015). Further, it is not

disputed that the compensation as calculated in case of Ghasi Ram

has already been decided to be paid by the State Government and

has been paid to the khatedars. Therefore, petitioners-State may

not be permitted to apply any different formula or method other

than, which has been applied and followed in calculation of the

compensation payable to the acquired land of khatedar- Ghasi

Ram and no inequality/ disparity in making calculation of

[2026:RJ-JP:26996] (40 of 40) [CW-11859/2020]

enhanced compensation, payable to the respondents can be

allowed to be made.

32.As a final result, calculation of enhanced compensation as

made in the orders impugned does not warrant any interference in

the writ jurisdiction, which is otherwise an equitable jurisdiction,

hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Incidently, the stay

order dated 05.10.2021 also stands vacated and comes to an end.

33.Since against the due compensation, as calculated in the

order dated 14.10.2019, petitioners have paid an amount of

Rs.1,13,95,294/- (Rs.85,74,725/- principal amount +

Rs.28,20,569/- interest amount up to 31.10.2021) and till today

against recovery of remaining amount, stay was in operation in

light of the order dated 05.10.2021 which has come to an end

now, therefore, it is hereby observed that in case petitioners make

payment of differential amount to respondents within a period of

two months, same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum as fixed in the order dated 05.10.2021, failing which,

thereafter, on the differential unpaid amount of compensation, the

rate of interest, as prescribed in the amended award/order dated

07.04.2011 shall apply.

34.Stay application and other pending application(s), if any,

stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SUNIL SOLANKI/PS