LALARAM & OTHERS v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &ANR.

c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. Leave granted.

2Copy pinpoint2. A procrastinated legal tussle spanning over three decades has spiralled up the judicial tiers to this Court seeking a quietus to the issue of adequate reparation of the appellants, 0 consequent upon the compulsory acquisition of their lands for the Indian Army for its "Field Firing Range" in the year 1981.

3Copy pinpoint3. The debate centres around the grant of 15% developed residential land in lieu of compensation which, as perceived by the oustees, had been promised by the Urban Development Department of the State Government by its proclaimed policy dated 13.12.2001. The State of Rajasthan (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the State/State Government") and the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "JOA") have taken turf together to successfully laciniate the appellants' identification of such land, thus impelling them to impeach the impugned judgment and order dated 12.8.2011 rendered by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan upholding the refutation. Since the verdict assailed is common in all the appeals, the instant adjudication would suffice for the analogous disposal thereof.

4Copy pinpoint4. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 28415 of 2011 and H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 419 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

29515 of 201.1, Ms. Bina. Madhavan, learned counsel forthe appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 36111 and 36179 of 2011, Mr. Sakal Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 36175 of 2012, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel · for the. respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

5Copy pinpoint5. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the . indispensable facts are that the lands df the appellants situated at Village Boytawala, District Jaipur was acquired by the State . under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "Rajasthan Act") and the Notification under Section 4 thereof to this effect was issued on 8.5.1981. To reiterate, the land was acquired for the purpose bf the Army for its "Field Filing Range". The award under the Rajasthan Act was passed by the Land Acquisition D Officer on 26.3.1983 and the possession of the land was taken over on 26.3.1983. Though the compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer@ Rs. 1500 per bigha, on reference being made under the aforementioned statute, the Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs. 15000/- per bigha E by its decision dated 11.4.1994. The determination of market value of the lands made by the Reference. Court was unsuccessfully challenged by the Authority and its appeals were dismissed by the High Court on 30.8.2000. The compensation awarded at Rs. 15000/- per bigha, thus attained finality. F Compensation, the above notwithstanding, was deposited in the court concerned @Rs. 1500 per bigha on 11.10.2001. Thus, the amount of compensation deposited was not at the enhanced rate fixed by the Reference Court and affirmed by the High Court. G

6Copy pinpoint6. Meanwhile, by circular No. F.6(19)UDH/3/89, Jaipur dated 21.9.1999 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Urban Development and Housing Department, it was notified by the State Government that it had taken a decision with . H

p. 420

A reference to the earlier circulars, as mentioned therein, that developed land equivalent to 15% of the area required, may be given to the khatedars/land owners in lieu of the land being acquired/held under acquisition/surrendered, as the case may be, in land acquisition cases for commercial purposes. A B meeting, thereafter of a High Powered Body under the chairmanship of the Minister of the Department of Urban Development, Rajasthan was held on 18.10.2001 in which it was discussed that in several cases of land acquisition, though award had been passed, the compensation had not been paid to the land owners. It was decided that, in cases where compensation amount awarded had not been paid, though award had been passed, one more opportunity to the khatedars to opt for developed land ought to be afforded and on the basis of the merit of such claims, 15% developed land be allotted to them. The option was made valid till 31.3.2001 and it was resolved that the allotment of land would be made through the allotment committee of the concerned organization. As the minutes of the said meeting would reveal, it was resolved as well that the developed land in lieu of the acquired land would be usually allotted only in the scheme area and at the place where the land acquired was situated and if it was not possible to develop the scheme within the fixed period of five months or if it was not possible to give the land in the same area, only then the land would be allotted in some other area. It was however underlined, that the concerned committee would as far as possible make an endeavour to allot such land to the land losers near the scheme area.

7Copy pinpoint7. The circular No. F6(19)/UDD/89, Jaipur dated 13.12.2001 occupying the centre stage of the debate was thereafter issued by the Under Secretary to the Department of Urban Development with reference to the circular/notification No. F.6(9)/UDH/89 dated 21.9.1999, adverted to hereinabove. The said circular took note of the pendency of land acquisition matters in which, though award had been passed but H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 421 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

compensation could not be paid to the land owners. It noted as well, that said land owners in the past could not submit their options within the time prescribed due to lack of information about the provision of allotment of developed land in lieu of cash compensation. The circular recorded the decision of the State, to the effect that in old cases in which award had been passed but compensation could not be made to the khatedars, one more opportunity ought to be granted to them. As a corollary, thereby the khatedars/land owners were left at liberty to exercise their option till 28.2.2002 to be allotted 15% developed land in the scheme area by the allotment committee of the concerned organization, afterthe approval from the State. The composition of the Committee in the eventualities as mentioned therein was also delineated. The conditions for allotment required, inter alia, thatthe land to be allotted was to be developed residential land located "normally in the same o scheme area and at the very place from where the land had been acquired" and not a commercial land.

8Copy pinpoint8. Admittedly, the appellants exercised their options and submitted their applications within the time allowed for being allotted 15% developed· land in lieu of the compensation E payable to them. They did so in writing on 15.1.2002 whereby in the applications addressed to the concerned authority, they recorded their request for 15% developed land in Vidyadhar Nagar Scheme.

9Copy pinpoint9. While the matter rested at that, the JDA on 17.5.2003 F issued an auction notice for sale of Group Housing plots in Vidyadhar Nagar Scheme. This was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Tribunal") under Section 83(8)(a) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 G (hereinafter, in short to be referred to as "JDAAct"), inter alia, alleging discrimination on the ground that persons similarly situated like the appellants, had been allotted developed lands in Vidyadhar Nagar Scheme, while they were sought to be H

p. 422

A deprived by the assailed initiative to auction the land within the said scheme. The Tribunal, by its ruling dated 18.8.2003, annulled the auction notice and held that the JDA would not sell or auction the plots mentioned therein, till the appellants were allotted 15% developed land in the Vidyadhar Nagar B Scheme. The Writ Petition filed by the JDA before the High Court impugning the above decision of the Tribunal was dismissed on 4.1.2005.

10Copy pinpoint10. Subsequent. thereto, on 1.7.2005, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Nagariye Vibhag, C addressed a letter to the Commissioner, JDA, Jaipur offering allotment of land in terms of the Circular dated 13.12.2001 to the concerned khatedars/beneficiaries, at Villages Lalchandpura and Anantpura to be allotted through lottery. Being aggrieved by the said decision and also the follow up process in connection therewith, the appellants approached the Tribunal afresh. By the judgment and order dated 18.10.2005, the Tribunal returned a finding that appellants were entitled to be allotted 15% developed land in Vidyadhar Nagar Scheme, as plots were available thereat. Thereby the respondent J.D.A was directed that the appellants be allotted developed land at Vidyadhar Nagar in lieu of their acquired land and also restrained it from allotting or selling such land to others. In arriving at this conclusion, as the narration in the .decision would reveal, the Tribunal.took cognizance of the fact that the land of the appellants situated in Village Boytawala was acquired for Field Firing Range, in exchange whereof, the Ministry of Defence had handed over to the JDA, land at Vidyadhar Nagar. It also recorded the fact that the JDA had admitted in its reply that the price of the offered land in G Lalchandpura and Anantpura Villages was negligible in comparison to that of Vidyadhar Nagar. It, thus held the view, that the proposal for allotment of land at Lalchandpura and Anantpura Villages to the appellants, by distinguishing them from others to whom 15% developed land in lieu of H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 423 [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

compensation had been allotted in Vidyadhar Nagar, was A inappropriate.

11Copy pinpoint11. Time rolled by without making any endeavour on the part of the JOA, to comply with the determination of the Tribunal. It was, at this juncture, that the JOA, after two years addressed a letter dated 16.10.2007 to the Deputy Secretary (P), Chief B Minister Office, Rajasthan Government reciting summarily the above facts. While admitting that out of the khatedars, alike the appellants, whose land at Boytawala village had been acquired, two namely; S/Sh. Sedu and Nathu had been allotted 15% developed land in the Vidyadhar Nagar Scheme, it C disclosed that at that point of time as well, larid measuring 1, 10,500 sq. meters was available in the Vidyadhar Nagar Scheme . .12. Situated thus and appalled by the inaction on the part 0 of JOA, the appellants approached the High Court with S.B. Civil Writ Petition 9908 of 2008, complaining of non- coi;npliance of the operative directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 of the Tribuna[ By order dated 23.10.2008, the learned Single Judge required the JOA E to comply with the aforesaid directions. within a period of two months. It was recorded that the JOA had not questioned the verdict dated 18.10.2005 of the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the JOA filed D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1879 of 2008 which also came to be dismissed on 17.11.2008. The JOA, F undaunted by the reverses, approached this Court with Special leave Petition (C) No. 2901 of 2009 which was disposed on

20. 7.2009, as in the interregnum, the judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 of the Tribunal came to be assailed by the JOA in S. B. (Civil) W.P. No. 539 of 2009 before the High Court. By the order dated 20.7.2009, this Court, however, did observe, G without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, that the judgment and order dated 17 .11.2008 of Division Bench of the High Court in challenge before it, would be subject to any order, that would be passed in the writ petition. H

p. 424

13Copy pinpoint13. The Writ Petition No. 539 of 2009 was dismissed by the High Court on 11.1.2010 where after the JOA preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 276 of2010 against the same. The decision impugned in the present batch of appeals arises from the said verdict.

14Copy pinpoint14. As the judgment under scrutiny herein would demonstrate, whereas the appellants asserted that in terms of circulars, which they perceived to be in the form of state policy, they were entitled to 15% developed land at Vidyadhar Nagar, as the land therein was given by the Army in exchange C of the one at Boytawala, acquired for the Field Firing Range, the JOA emphatically countered the said claim pleading that not only land at Vidyadhar Nagar was unavailable for allotment, being reserved for various purposes under the Group Housing Scheme, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a D prayer and in particular in issuing a direction to allot such land at Vidyadhar Nagar to the appellants. In response to the appellants' contention that in lieu of the compensation not paid to them, they were entitled to 15% developed land at Vidyadhar Nagar as an adequate substitute thereof in terms of the E Government circular/policy dated 13.12.2001 and that the denial of the benefit of the policy was apparently discriminatory, the JOA, amongst others, sought to substantiate that the land at Vidyadhar Nagar was much more valuable compared to the acquired land at Boytawala and the price of the land at F Lalchandpura and Anantpura Villages was adequately commensurate to the land acquired. While alleging that the awarded amount had been deposited in the concerned Court but not withdrawn by the appellants, the JOA, however, admitted that the area of the 15% developed land to be allotted G was 6539 sq. meters but maintained that a plot of this extent was not available at Vidyadhar Nagar.

15Copy pinpoint15. The State in turn pleaded, that the policy decision had been taken under the chairmanship of the Minister of Department of Urban Development on 18.10.2001, whereafler H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . 425 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

consequential notifications had been issued from time to time. A It however urged as well, that in compliance of the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer, cheques for the amount of compensation had been issued and deposited in favour of khatedars, which however remained uncollected from this Reference Court in which it is deposited. B

16Copy pinpoint16. The Division Bench, in course of the adjudication noticed, that the Reference Court had enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1500 per bigha accorded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 15000/- per bigha in the year 1994 and that the appeals preferred by the JOA against the C same had been dismissed. It also recounted the fact, that the land of the appellants situated in village Boytawala had been · acquired for establishing a Field Firing Range for which the land at Vidyadhar Nagar earlier earmarked for the said purpose had been released in favour of JOA for Group Housing D Scheme. It recorded as well the fact, that after the enhancement . of compensation made by the Reference Court, the State had issued the circular dated 13.12.2001, pursuant to a meeting of a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of Dei;iartmentofUrban Development on 18.10.2001, resolving E to allot 15% developed land in cases where compensation had not been accepted by the claimants. That in response to the option called for from such willing land losers pursuant to the circular dated 13.12.2001, the same had been submitted in time, was noted as well. F

17Copy pinpoint17. The Division Bench, however, on a survey of the Sections 83 and 90 of the JDA Act held, in the prevailing conspectus of facts, that the decision impugned before the Tribunal was beyond the purview of its jurisdiction aad that it G was not open for it to direct the respondents for allotment of land at Vidyadhar Nagar. This finding of fact rendered by the High Court was premised on a deduction that the circular dated 13.12.2001 had not been issued in the name of the Governor of the State as required under Article 166(1) of the Constitution H

p. 426

A of India and was not authenticated by the Governor as well as mandated under Article 166(2). It also mentioned that the circular dated 13.12.2001 was bereft of any reference to the JDAAct, and thus the decision contained therein could not be · construed to be one under the said statute. Though it did notice B that the decision was taken at the level of departmental minister · and did relate to the land acquired under the Rajasthan Act, it was of the view that it could not be said to have been taken under any provision of the JDAAct. Therefore, it has held that the circular dated 13.12.2001 did not have any statutory force. c 18. Referring to the decision of this Court in particular in Jaipur Development Authority and Others vs. Vijay Kumar Data & Another (2011) 12 SCC 94 and in State of Bihar Vs. Kripalu Shankar(1987) 3 SCC 34, the Division Bench entered a finding on ·the above aspect that the decision . D contained in the circular dated 13.12.2001 being not in conformity with the precept of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, it was therefore not enforceable in law. It held the view that, even if, it could be construed to be a policy decision enforceable in law, it was not open for the Tribunal to direct allotment of land at Vidyadhar Nagar as the value of the land was highly disproportionate to the one acquired from the appellants. It recorded the finding that apart from the fact that land at Vidyadhar Nagar was not available, the plea of discrimination urged by the appellants on the ground that two of the similarly situated khatedars/beneficiaries had been offered land at Vidyadhar Nagar was untenable. It recorded that the land at Vidyadhar Nagar had been released to the State for 'Group Housing Scheme of the JDAand that allotment of 15% developed land thereat to the appellants would amount to dissipation of valuable property for unjust enrichment of a chosen few.· The appellants were left at liberty to receive the amount of compensation as awarded @ Rs. 15000 per bigha.

19Copy pinpoint19. Before adverting to the rival contentions advanced, it would be expedient to complete the narration of facts pleaded H

LALARAM'v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 427 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

before this Court and having a significant bearing on the course A of adjudication.

20Copy pinpoint20. By order dated 15.01.2013 this Court formulated the · following queries requiring the respondent State and the JOA to respond thereto by filing an additional affidavit. B "Query No.1. Did the State Government/Jaipur Development Authority ever formulate any policy providing for allotment of "land in lieu of land" acquired by the State Government/Jaipur Development Authority. lfso, when was the policy formulated and by whom? c Query No.2. If the policy in question was formulated by and under the orders of the Minister In-charge of the Department concerned, Government of Rajasthan, was . the matter relating to the formulation of the said policy submitted to the Chief Minister in terms of Rule 31, sub- D rule (2) of the Rajasthan Rules of Business? In case, the matter was submitted, what were the orders passed by the Chief Minister on the said matter of the proposed policy? . Query No.3. Was the land for land policy given effect to E in relation to acquisitions made for Boyatwala Field Firing Range. If so, how much land was allotted and in whose favour and under whose orders? Query No.4. Was any !'IPPlication made for allotment by F Madan Lal &Others, petitioners in Special Leave Petition No.36175 of 2011, as legal representatives of the deceased Ananda - original Khatedar for allotment of· any land, under the policy mentioned above? If so, was· the application ever considered and/or any orders on the G same passed? Copies of the order dealing with the request for allotment of land be also placed on record. Query No.5. Do the appellants before this Court qualify for allotment of land in lieu of acquired land in terms of the policy? If so, is the State Government/Jaipur H

p. 428

A Development Authority ready and willing to make suitable allotment of land in accordance with the policy in their favour? ·Query No.6. Is the land offered to petitioners in Special Leave Petition No.28415 of 2011 in Anantpura/ B Lalchandpura on the outskirts of City Jaipur still available for allotment in their favour? Query No7. Whether land referred to in Circular dated 16.10.2007, found at page 157 of Special Leave Petition c No.28415 of 2011, issued by the Jaipur Development Authority is available with the Jaipur Development Authority? In case, it is available, has the area been reserved for any specific purpose?".

21Copy pinpoint21. To be exact in the portrayal, it would be apt to extract ad verbatim the averments in the affidavit filed on 22.01.2013 on behalf of the Urban Development Department of Rajasthan Government. Precise answers to the queries No.1, 2 and 7 have been quoted hereinbelow: "Response to Query No.1. - It is respectfully submitted that the State of Rajasthan has issued some Policy circulars of giving land in lieu of compensation. The details of such circulars dated 21.09.1999, 31.12.2001, 22.04.1992 and 27.10.2005 are as follows: F (a) Policy Circular dated 22.04.1992: Allotment of 12% developed land in lieu of cash compensation for the acquired land was provided for in this circular. This circular was issued with the approval of Minister-in- Charge of the Department. G (b) Policy Circular dated 21.09.1999: This policy Circular provides for 15% ijeveloped land in lieu of cash compensation for the acquired land, provided that the award was not passed earlier an.d compensation had not been paid till then. This circular H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 429 [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

was issued. with the approval of Minister-in-Charge of the Department. (c) Circular dated 13.12.2001: This circular provided for time extension for exercising option to the land holders for 15% developed land in lieu of the acquired land. In this circular, tpe date of submitting options was fixed as 28.02.2002. (d) Policy Circular dated 27 .10.2005: In this circular provision for 25% developed land, instead of 15% earlierwas made. This policy was given effect forthe c land acquisition cases after this date. This circular was issued with the approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister. Response to Query No.2 a. It is respectfully submitted that there are Rajasthan Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Constitution D of India. All the cases referred to in the second schedule shall be brought before Council of Ministers or a constituted sub-committee in accordance with Part Ill of the Rules. E b. Rule 31 (1 )(ii) provides the cases which have to be referred to Chief Minister before issuance of orders and the cases raising question of policy and all the cases of administrative importance not already covered by second schedule. F c. It is also respectfully submitted that each Department is headed by Minister in Charge and all the respective functions are enumerated in allocation of concerned department. For example, the Urban Development Department work is enumerated at item no. Xl-D G (Urban Development & Housing Department) and which includes acquisition of land for JDA/UIT Scheme and Housing Board.

H

p. 430

A d. There are also standing orders under Rule 21 which are issued for purposes of governing the concerned Department with the Minister-in-Charge as Head. It would be relevant to mention that the standing orders issued under Rule 21, at Item 106 it was clearly B mentioned that the Minister-in-Charge was competent authority in matters ,relating to land acquisition and also for releasing the land under acquisition. The competent authority in relation to land acquisition/ release of land under acquisition shall be the Minister C in Charge. However, by notification dated 08.07 .2004, the rules of Business Allocation have been amended and now the land under acquisition/release of land from acquisition has been brought within the ambit of second schedule, and by virtue of Rule 8 read in o conjunction with Rule 31, the file has to be approved by Hon'ble Chief Minister. e. Since the matter of land in lieu of compensation is considered as matter relating to acquisition or for releasing the land under acquisition, it is within the E ambit of Rule 21 and therefore the Minister-in-Charge was capable of said decision. It is relevant to mention that as far as the circular dated 27.10.2005 is concerned, it has been duly approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and therefore the Circular of 27.10.2005 F does not suffer from legal infirmity that the Rules of Business were not followed. Response to Query No.7 The land mentioned in the letter dated 16.10.2007 is still vacant arid there are plots of different categories like individual residential plots, group housing, commercial, institutional and reserved for other uses. Some of the land is simply marked as 'reserved'. The word 'reserved' denotes no specific land use but it could be used for schools, hospital, parks, public amenities etc."

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 431 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

22Copy pinpoint22. In substance, the State Government in its reply affidavit did admit that it had issued the policy circulars alluded to, for providing land in lieu of compensation including the one · dated 13.12.2001, which provided for extension of time for the exercise of option by the land holders for 15% developed land in lieu of their acquired land. That prior thereto, provision for allotment of 12% developed land in lieu of compensation, subsequently enhanced to 15% developed land was made by the policy circulars dated 22.04.1992 and 21.09.1999, issued with the approval of the Minister-in-Charge of the department, was averred as well. The additional affidavit disclosed further that by a later policy circular dat.ed 27 .10.2005 issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the extent of developed land was further enhanced to 25%.

23Copy pinpoint23. Significantly, it was stated in unambiguous terms with reference to Rule 31 (2) of the Rules of Business for Rajasthan D (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules"), framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India that in terms of the Standing Order framed under Rule 21, the Minister-in- Charge of the Department as per the Business allocation under the Rules was the competent authority in matters relating to land acquisition and release of land therefrom. It was, however, averred that by notification dated 08.07.2004, the Rules of Business allocation had been amended and the subject of land under acquisition/release of land from acquisition had been brought within the ambit of Second Schedule consequent whereupon, by virtue of Rule 8 read with Rule 31 of Rules, any decision with regard thereto was to be approved by the Chief Minister of the State. The affidavit elaborated that as the issue of land in lieu of compensation was one relating to acquisition and/or release of land under acquisition, it was within the ambit of Rule 21 of Rules and, therefore, the Minister-in-Charge was capable of taking a decision in connection therewith. The pleaded stand of the State on the competence of the Minister- in-Charge of the Urban Development Department, at the H

p. 432

A relevant point of time to take a final decision with regard to the issue of land in lieu of compensation in the context of the policy circular dated 13.12.2001 thus did not admit of any ambiguity.

24Copy pinpoint24. The affidavit further stated that there was no developed land in Boytawala and Niwaru range and that out of 8 the 54 land owners affected, 45 including the appellants had been allotted land at Lalchandpura/Anantpura. That two out of the affected land owners had been allotted land under such policy circular at Vidyadhar Nagar was admitted. c 25. It was disclosed as well that Vidyadharwas located 5 km away from Boytawala range whereas Lalchandpura/ Anantpura were situated 35 kms and 14 kms respectively from such range. As would be apparent from the reply to query No.7, the State admitted that the land referred to in letter dated 16.10.2007 issued by the JOA, and located at Vidyadhar 0 Nagar was still vacant. It was, however maintained that the plots therein were identified for residential, group housing, commercial and institutional purposes.

26Copy pinpoint26. In course of the hearing of these appeals, this Court E in its order dated 07.05.2015 recorded the submission advanced on behalf of the JOA that although sufficient land was available at Lalchandpura, Boytawala, Anantpura and Mansarampura, those.were not fully developed and that it would require another two years to develop the same. The willingness of the JOA to offer developed land in other areas in discharge of its obligation under the policy was recorded. This Court, as prayed for on behalf of the JOA, granted it four weeks' further time to enable it to identify and place on record the particulars of the land representing 15% of the area acquired from the appellants in a developed colony. The JOA was required within the time granted, to file an affidavit indicating the proposed area for allotment to the appellants. It was observed in no uncertain terms, that the area(s) offered ought to be in developed colonies unlike area(s) which had been earlier offered but were not fully developed.

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 433 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

27Copy pinpoint27. The JOA in its additional affidavit dated 16.07 .2015 A in turn offered land(s) in the following schemes for allotment, as substantial investments had been made to carry out development works thereat.

S.No. JOA Name of Schemes Total available B Zone land for No. allotment 1 11 Rohini Nagar - I 50598.22 Sq. mfr.

2. 11 Anupam Vihar 50598.22 Sq.mtr.

3. 13 P~ambara 50598.22 Sq. mtr. c Rajbhawan

4. 14 Abhinav Vihar Vistar 50598.22 Sq. mtr.

5. 14 Ronni Nagar - II 50598.22 Sq. mtr. D

6. 14 HaritVihar 50598.22 Sq. mtr.

28Copy pinpoint28. The appellants in their reply affidavit dated 17.08.2015 to the affidavit dated 16.7.2015, rejected the lands so offered emphatically contending that those were not developed land and did not offer even minimum essential facilities of water, electricity, road etc. According to the appellants, these lands were situated in the rural belt and were in fact grazing plots, totally undeveloped and shorn of any attribute of development as contemplated by the policy circular dated 13.12.2001 . In addition to the photographs of the plots offered by the JOA, the appellants in a tabular form also depicted the relevant features thereof, excerpts of particulars of which are extracted herein below: Sr.No. Name of Nature of land Year Amenities G scheme Available 1 Rohini Pasture 2005 No Road, Phase I (Cha ragah/grazing) water, Totally undeveloped electricity, and in rural belt drainage, sewerage. etc. H

p. 434

- -- A --~

f\bt a sirgle-~ I rouse'fla is constructed in the wtnle schare

~ 36.ffi~from Caitra Jaip.Jr 8 - - 2 2000 No R:Jad, wcter, '""'"' Vihar Boih """' PastlJ'e electricity, draina;ie, (Charagai/gazing) sewerage, etc. Tctally f\bt a sirgle undeveloped and in rouse'fla is c rural oolt constructed in the Vvtole schare 25.4Kmfran Caitra Jainor I

3. Pitarrbara Khasra f\b. 2 (Area 2000 No R:Jad, wcter, . Scherre 139-01 hectares); electricity, drainage, D Khasra f\b.3 sewerage, etc. (Barren land; Area f\bt a sirgle 93-06 hectares) rouse'fla is Khasra f\b.5 constructed in the (barren lard; Area Vvtole schare '

j 2-01 hectares); E Khasra f\b. 39-Area 35.CO ~from I 3-16 hectares Caitra Jai nir 1 Raphavlan PastlJ'e 2000 No R:Jad, wcter, Yojana (Charagaitgazing) electricity, draina;ie, 1 Tctally se.verage, etc. F undeveloped and in f\bt a sirgle rural oolt rouse'fla is constructed in the Vvtole schare

35.CO ~from G Caitra Jaip.Jr

4. Rohini Pastura 2000 Sarre as above- Alase II (Charagai/gazing) 36.ffi~from Tctally Caitra Jai p.Jr undeveloped and in rural tell i H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 435 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

5. Abhinav Pasture 2014 No Road, water, A Vihar Vistar (Charagah/grazing) electricity, Totally undeveloped drainage, and in rural belt sewerage, etc. Not a single house/flat.is constructed in the whole scheme B 31.70 Km from · Central Jaiour

6. Harit Vihar Pasture 2010 No Road, water, (Charagah/grazing) electric tty, Totally undeveloped drainage, and in rural belt sewerage, etc. Not a single c house/flat is constructed in the whole scheme

31.70 Km from Central Jaiour D

29Copy pinpoint29. The appellants also furnished in their aforementioned counter-affidavit particulars of the land referred by this Court in its order dated 17 .05.2015, plots offered by the JDA in its additional affidavit dated 16.07.2015 and the lands suggested E by them to be allotted in terms of the policy circular dated 13.12.2001 as depicted in the tables hereunder:

DISTANCE FRCJYI CENTRAL PCINT JAIPlR a= SCHEIVESNIUAGES EARLIER PRCFOSED BY JAIPUR F DEVEl..OPIVENT AUTl-fJRTY BY AFADAVllS DATED 17.09.2014 AND ZG.04.2015 AllD WHO-I HAV EBEEN REJECTED BY THS HGl'BLE COlRT "1DE CJIDER DATED 07.05.2015 Sit. No. ScherreNillage Distance from Ceriral Point Jaipll" G 1 Lal Ct-andpura 17 Kl'v1 2 l'v'ansararpura (N:Jt a JOA 19.30 Kl'v1 scherre) 3 - ·'a 14.70 Kl'v1 4 Anantpura 39 Kl'v1 H

p. 436

A II DISTANCE - -----------1 FROM CENTRAL POINT JAIPUR OF SCHEMESNILLAGES NOW PROPOSED BY JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.07.2015 PURSUANT TO ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE 8 COURT DATED 07.05.2015. ___ .., Sri. No. - - SchemeNillage Distance fro~ Ceritral Po!!Jt Jaipur 1 Rohini Phase I 36.80 KM· - - - 2 Anuoam Vihar 25.40 KM 3 Pitambara & Raibhawan 35.00 KM c 4 Rohini Phase II 36.80 KM ·-- 5 Abhinav Vihar 31.70 KM

6. Harit Vihar 31.70KM

Ill - - . ---- ---- --- --- ---· ·-~-- -~--

D DISTANCE OF DEVELOPED SCHEMES OF JOA FROM CENTRAL POINT VILLAGE BOYTAWAWLA WITH AMPLE LAND AVAILABLE, WHICM CAN BE ALLOTED TO ALL THE KHATEDARS. Sri. No. SchemeNillage Distance from E Central Point Jaipur 1 Vidhyadhar Naqar 5.0KM --- 2 Gokul Nagar 10.5 KM 3 Truck Terminal 15.6 KM 4 Vaishali Naaar 12.8 KM F

30Copy pinpoint30. The State followed up the chain of pleadings by its additional affidavit dated 28.09.2015 to state that in addition to the Lalchandpura, land at Boytawala was also offered to the appellants and accused them of unreasonably rejecting G the options of developed land being offered to them from time to time. Reference to land atAnand Vihar JOA Residential Developed Scheme situated near Ajmer Road at a distance of 3-4 kms from main National Highway No.8 was also made to indicate that the same was available as well. According to H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 437 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

the State, the amount of compensation payable to the A appellants forthe land acquired as on date, computed on the basis of the enhanced rate of Rs.15000/- per bigha, would be Rs. 95,59,044/- and insisted that the market value of the plots identified by them would be disproportionately higher than the quantum of compensation to which they are entitled. B 31 .. In between, an additional affidavit was also filed being sworn by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone - Jaipur Development Authority on 16.07.2015, bringing on record, the Rules framed in exercise of powers framed by the Governor of the State under Clauses (2) & (3) of Article 166 of the C Constitution of India, including amongst others, the notification No. F(27)(2)(a) dated 05.03.1999 amending the Rules.

32Copy pinpoint32. In the above imposing mass of contentious pleadings. and records, it has been assiduously urged by Dr. Dhawan D that the circular dated 13.12.2001 being a policy decision of the State, it was obligatory on its part to act in terms therewith and, therefore, the denial to the appellants of 15% developed land in lieu of the compensation for the land acquired is grossly illegal, arbitrarily, unconstitutional, unfair and unjust. According E to the learned senior counsel, the series of circulars on the issue of allotment of developed land in lieu of compensation, commencing from the one dated 22.04.1992 do assuredly attest a consistent decision of the State to pursue the same as its solemn policy qua the land oustees responding thereto F and thus the impugned conduct of the respondents in reneging therefrom besides being whimsical, arbitrary and highhanded also tentamounts to a patent infraction of their unassailable right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. G

33Copy pinpoint33. The appellants having.been beckoned to believe that they would stand adequately compensated by accepting developed land to the extent of 15% of the total area of their . land in lieu of compensation, they cannot be left high and dry H

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A over three decades and further subject them to a spate of vexatious litigation, he urged.

34Copy pinpoint34. Dr. Dhawan, insistently asserted with particular reference to the affidavit filed by the State responding to the queries of this Court, that the circular issued on 13.12.2001 8 was indeed a policy decision in conformity with the Rules and that any stand in divagation therefrom ought to be dismissed in limine. ·

35Copy pinpoint35. While rejecting the endeavour on the part of the c respondents to plead that in view of the amendment in the Rules w.e.f. 05.03.1999, the approval of the Chief Minister on the issue of acquisition and release of land was mandatory and thus the circular dated 13. 12.2001 being opposed thereto was non est, the learned senior counsel also urged that the orders/ 0 circulars dated 08.07.1994 and 20.07.1998 amongst others clearly belied the same.

36Copy pinpoint36. While underlining that the State and the JOA are perceptionally and essentially one in the process, Dr. Dhawan endeavoured to demonstrate as well that in all the relevant circulars starting from the date 22.04.1992 on the issue, a copy thereof had been marked to the Secretariat of the Chief Minister of the State. The learned senior counsel referred to the Rules in details to evince that on the date of issuance of the circular dated 13.12.2001, the departmental minister was exclusively competent to take a decision on the issue of acquisition and release of land in lieu of compensation and, thus the respondents were bound thereby. That in the memorandum of appeal before the High Court, they had accepted the circular dated 13.12.2001 as the policy decision of the State was urged by the learned senior counsel. He asserted that the impugned judgment was founded only the premise that the circular dated 13.12.2001 did not conform to the prescriptions of Article 166(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India and neither any plea was raised qua the Rules or Article H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 439 [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

166(3) nor there was any occasion to deal with it. Dr. Dhawan A has thus urged that this belated plea is wholly untenable in law.

37Copy pinpoint37. Adverting to Section 90 of the JDAAct in particular, the learned senior counsel has argued that as in terms thereof, the JOA was under an obligation to implement the government policy, it is impermissible for it to tum around and contend that B the appeal filed by the appellants before the Tribunal was not maintainable.

38Copy pinpoint38. According to the learned senior counsel, in this premise, the finding recorded in the impugned judgment, that c the appeal filed by the appellants before the Tribunal was unsustainable is patently erroneous. Further it being no longer res integra that the prescriptions of Article 166 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of India are directory in nature, the policy circular dated 13.12.2001 could not have been rendered non-existent on the ground that the same had not been expressed and issued in the name of the Governor of the State or had not been authenticated as required under the said provision, he maintained. Dr. Dhawan also urged, that as the interpretation of the policy circular dated 13.12.2001, having regard to the theme thereof, has to be purposively liberal and fructuous vis- a-vis the rights of the land users under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the Tribunal was perfectly justified, in the attending facts, circumstances and conduct of the respondents to direct them to allot 15% developed land at Vidyadhar Nagar F to them. Dr. Dhawan argued that, on the one hand, the State did not deposit the amount of compensation at the enhanced rate as granted by the Court, and on the other, denied the appellants their share of developed land at Vidyadhar Nagar as was due to them. He therefore urged, that it is a fit case in which direction ought to be issued to the respondents to allot G 15% developed land in the areas, as suggested by the appellants i.e. Vidyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal and Vaishali Nagar.

H

p. 440

39Copy pinpoint39. Supplementing the above, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel has urged that in the face of clear and categorical stand of the State, that the circular dated 13.12.2001 did embody its policy on land in lieu of compensation and that the departmental minister was B authorized and competent to decide thereon, the belated stand of the respondents is contrary thereto and ought to be summarily rejected. The land having been compulsorily acquired in the year 1981 with no compensation therefor paid till date, the resistance offered by the respondents it sustained c would result in their undue enrichment which is impermissible in law, he urged. Rejecting the land at Lalchandpura and other sites as offered by the respondents in their counter affidavit as wholly undeveloped, Mr. Mehta has asserted that insistence for acceptance of these lands is apparently in the exercise of o superior bargaining power of the State and ought to be firmly disapproved. According to him, the appellants have been wrongly non-suited by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground of non-compliance of Article 166 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mehta insisted that in face of the rejection of the lands at Anantpura, Lalchandpura, Mansarampura and Boytawala by this Court, vide its order dated 07.05.2015, the endeavour on the part of the respondents to impose the same on the appellants betrays Jack of bona tides as well. He urged that in any view of the matter, the respondents have already acted on the policy circular dated 13.12.2001 in allotting, amongst others, plots at Vidyadhar Nagar to some of the persons who are similarly situated and thus they cannot be permitted to retrace their steps arbitrarily at the cost of the appellants. The learned senior counsel urged as well, that the policy circular in question was fully in accordance with the Rules and that the endeavour of the respondents to weigh the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for their lands with the value of the developed land, as on date, as a factor for allotment under the policy is not only indefensible but also irrational and illogical as well.

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 441 [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

To reinforce his arguments, Mr. Mehta cited the decisions of this Court in Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar Vs. The . State of Bombay & Ors., 1952 SCR 612, R. Chitralekha Vs. State of Mysore & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1823, Hari Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 621.

40Copy pinpoint40. Per contra Mr. Sunderam has assertively refuted the status of the circular dated 13.12.2001 as one conveying' a policy decision of the State on the issue of land in lieu of compensation, enforceable in law. He has urged that, as in view of the amendment to the Rules occasioned on 05.03.1999, prior to the date of the circular in question i.e. C 13.12.2001, the approval of the Chief Minister was an indispensible pre-condition for the validity thereof, the same is of no avail to the appellants for all intents and purposes. As the Rules are mandatory, no deviation there from is allowable and, thus the circular dated 13.12.2001 does not vest any right with the appellants to claim developed land in lieu of compensation in terms thereof, he maintained. This is notwithstanding the response of the State in its affidavit in reply to the Court's queries, he urged. He argued that the factum of the am~dment by the Notification to that effect had been duly brought on record on time to amply authenticate this contention and there can be no estoppel against law. Profused reference was made to the provisions of the Rules including the Second Schedule to endorse this plea. While admitting the above notwithstanding that the appellants are entitled to be allotted 65,000 sq.mtrs. of developed land, the learned • senior counsel has contended that the land at Vidyadhar Nagar is being utilized for housing colony is thus not available for them.

41Copy pinpoint41. Referring to the circular dated 13.12.2001, Mr. G Sunderam has emphasized that even assuming that this document espouses the cause of the appellants, in any view of the matter, they are not competent to dictate their preference of any land and thus the Court in exercise of its power of judicial H

p. 442

A review should not permit the same. Apart from contending that the circular dated 13.12.2001 besides being non complaint · with Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India, is even otherwise not enforceable in law, the learned senior counsel contended that the same at the best amounts to an offer to B allot 15% developed land, if available within the scheme area and if not, in an adjacent locality. Thereby the land oustees were not clothed with an inviolable right to demand any land of their choice by laying a counter offer, he maintained. Mr. Sunderam urged that neither the circular dated 13.12.2001 c does envisage such an indulgence nor this Court ought to direct the State to abide thereby. That in the instant case, the JDA had only acted on the decisions of the State, as taken from time to time, and thus on this ground, the appeal filed by the appellants before the Tribunal under Section 83 of the JDA D Act, was rightly held to be not maintainable, was underlined. Following authorities were cited at the Bar in Census Commissioner and others vs. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796, Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. vs. State of Goa & Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 499, MRF Ltd. vs. Manohar Parikar & Ors., E (2010) 11 SCC 374, Rajasthan Housing Board vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited and Anr., (2015) 7 sec 601.

42Copy pinpoint42. In his rejoinder, Dr. Dhawan adverted to the Rules as well as the notifications/circulars on the issue of land in lieu of compensation prior, and subsequent to the one dated · • 13.12.2001, to assert that the same irrefutably testified an abiding and conscious decision and the unreserved intention of the State to allot developed land to the land losers as a matter of implementable policy and not ex-contractu as is sought to be suggested. Reiterating that at no earlier point of time, the aspect of Article 166(3) had either been pleaded or urged, the learned senior counsel insisted that even otherwise, a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Rules would amply attest that the circular dated 13.12.2001 indeed contained a H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 443 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

coeval state policy of allotment of developed land in favour of land losers in lieu of compensation and that it is unquestionably enforceable in law againstthe respondents i.e. the State and the JDAacting in tandem. Dr. Dhawan thus urged that, in the attendant factual and legal premise, an appropriate writ of mandamus ought to be issued as sought for, by invoking the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation to actualize the constitutional right to the property of the appellants. The following decisions were relied upon in endorsement of the above: a) Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure C Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others (2001)8 sec 105; b) Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Sutni Sangam and others (2009) 16 sec 1; D c) Dev Sharan and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 4 sec 769; d) State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and others (2011) 1o sec 404; E e) Union of India vs. Anglo Afghan Agencies ( 1968) 2 SCR366; f) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of u.P. (1979) 2 sec 409; g) State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Limited and F another (2004) 6 sec 465; h) Monnet /spat and Energy Limited vs. Union of India and others (2012) 11 SCC 1; i)S. \I.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Limited and Others vs. G State of Kera/a and others (2014) 4 SCC 186; j)Food Corporation of India vs. Mis. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71. H

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (2015] 14 S.C.R.

43Copy pinpoint43. The contentious pleadings and the accompanying documents along with the competing arguments have received our in-depth consideration. The fulcrum of the debate, though is the circular dated 13.12.2001, construed as a communique of state policy, on acquisition of land and land in lieu of compensation, to be awarded in respect of the acquired land, the appellants herein seem to have been non-suited as well on the ground that the appeal/reference preferred/laid by them before the Tribunal under Section 83 of the JDAAct, was not maintainable, being impermissible. Though this issue need not detain us, as the rival assertions have sprawled beyond such peripheral contours, a passing reference thereto and the finding thereon would clear the deck forthe ensuing decisive adjudication.

44Copy pinpoint44. The JOA Act which received the assent of the D President on 12.10.1982, as the preamble thereof would evince, is a legislation for forming the Jaipur City and certain contiguous areas into Jaipur Region, to provide for the establishment of an Authority for the purpose of planning, co- ordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid E development of the Jaipur Region and for executing plans, projects and schemes for such development and to provide for matters connected therewith. The expressions "amenities" and "development" have been defined in Sections 2(2) and 2(5) of JDAAct respectively, as extracted herein under: F 2(2) "amenities" includes roads. bridges, any other means of communication. transport. streets. open spaces. parks, recreational grounds. play grounds, water. gas and electric supply, and source of energy, street lighting, sewerage, drainage, conservancy. public G works and such other utilities, services and conveniences as the State Government in consultation with the Authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be an amenityforthe purpose of this Act.

H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 445 [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

2(5) "development" with its grammatical variations, means the carrying out of building. engineering. mining or other operations in. or over, or under any land (including land under river. lake or any other water) or the making of any material change in any building or land or in the use of any building or land, and includes re-development and lay-out, and sub-division of any land and also the provision of amenities and projects and schemes for development of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, dairy development, poultry farming, piggery, cattle breeding, fisheries and other similar activities, and c 'to develop" shall be construed accordingly.

45Copy pinpoint45. In terms of Section 54 of the JDAAct, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the land as defined in Section 103 thereof, excluding land referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the said Section D and Nazul land placed at the disposal of a local authority under Section 102-Aof that Act in Jaipur Region, shall immediately after establishment of the JDA be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of and vested in it whereupon it would take over such land for and on behalf of the State Government and E would use the same for the purposes of the JDA Act and dispose of the same by way of allotment, regularisation or auction subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may, from time to time, lay down and in such manner, as it may, from time to time, prescribe. Sub-section 2 F of Section 54 prohibits development of any land except by or under.the co·ntrol and supervision of the JDA.

46Copy pinpoint46. The constitution of the Tribunal has been provided for under Section 83 of the JDA Act and sup-section 8(a) thereof permits any person aggrieved by an order or notice of G the JDA to file an appeal in the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of such order or notice to him. Under sub-clause 8(b ), any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the JOA affecting his rights, may refer the dispute H

p. 446

·A to the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication or knowledge of such threatened act or injury. The provision mandates that the decision of the Tribunal in such appeal or reference would be final. Section 90 of the JDAAct predicates, that the JDA would exercise its powers and perform its duties under the Act in accordance with the policy framed and guidelines laid down, from· time to time by the State for development of the areas in the Jaipur Region. It obligates the JDA to be bound to comply with such directions which may be issued, frorri time to time, by the State for efficient administration of the JDAAct. 4 7. On a cumulative reading of the above provisions of the JDAAct, it is apparent that with the enactment thereof, the land, as referred to in Section 54 thereof, would stand vested in JOA, whereupon it is competent, amongst others, to dispose of the same by way of allotment, regularisation or auction subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed by the State. The definition of the expressions "amenities" and "development" also in categorical terms outlines the imperative features of a developed land, as statutorily ordained. The JOA, thus being a creature of the statute, assuredly cannot deviate from such legislative edict in identifying a developed land at its disposal for allotment as and when warranted.

48Copy pinpoint48. The immediate cause of action for the appellants to approach the Tribunal, to recall, was the letter dated 1.7.2005 of Urban Development Department of the State.to the JOA, conveying its sanction for allotment of land at Lalchandpura and Anantpura Villages to the land losers in terms of the circular dated 13.12.2001 and the draw of lots conducted on

G 20. 7.2005 pursuant thereto as well as the allotment of land on the basis thereof. In view of the functional amalgam of the State and the JDA as contemplated by the Act, and having regard to the composition of the entity conducting the lots, we are of the view that the appellants ought not to be non-suited

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 44 7 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

on the specious plea that the order impugned by them before the Tribunal and the exercise undertaken pursuant thereto was not one by the JOA. As ·the Authority unmistakably was the implementing instrumentality of the primary decision of the allotment conveyed by the letter dated 1.7 .2005, their appeals/ reference before the Tribunal contesting the allotment of land at Lalchandpura and Anantpura Villages, in the entire conspectus of facts, cannot be said to be either unsustainable or impermissible. Any contrary view, in our comprehension, would be unwarrantably pedantic and repugnant to the letter and spirit of the JOA Act, and in particular undermine the c objective of providing a forum of appeal/reference thereunder. We, however, limit the determination to the singular facts and circumstances of the case.

49Copy pinpoint49. Be that as it may, the simmering epicentre of the dissensus that engaged the serious attention of the contestants is located in the Rules. The parties, however, are not so much in issue, herein over the status and bearing of the enjoinment of Article 166(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India as qua Article 166(3). To reiterate, the impugned judgment had razed the circular dated 13.12.2001 only on the ground that it was neither expressed in the name of Governor nor was it authenticated as obligated by Article 166(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. Article 166(3) did not surface for any analysis in the decision. Even the grounds formulated by the JOA in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal before the High Court did not pose a challenge to the circular dated 13.12.2001 to be invalid and non-construable as policy, being in derogation of Rules.

50Copy pinpoint50. The documents laid at the disposal of this Court being official circulars/communications issued by the G Government of Rajasthan, Urban Development and Housing Department would attest that in order to address the issue of often protracted process of acquisition of land and possession thereof, in view inter alia of the intervening litigations, a H

,

p. 448

A pre-meditated decision had been taken by the State to hasten ·the exercise without any hassle and on mutual settlement and to that effect, circular No F.6(44 )UDH/3/89 dated 1.1.1990 had been issu_ed. As the circular No. F.6 (44) UDH/3/89, Jaipur dated 22.4.1992 of the same Department would reveal, the B implementation of the decision had been kept in abeyance for want of guidelines. However, the State on a re-consideration of all aspects, did thereafter decide that persons/institutions surrendering their land free of cost to the Land Urban Improvement Trust/Jaipur DevelopmentAuthority/Rajasthan C Housing Board/ Municipal Council/Municipality, would be allotted developed land equivalent to maximum of 12% of the surrendered land on the terms and conditions as enumerated therein. A Settlement Committee was also constituted for receiving the land surrendered free of cost on mutual settlement.

51Copy pinpoint51. This was followed by circular No. F.6(19)UDH/3/89, Jaipur dated 21.09.1999 in continuation of the one dated 22.4.1992, referred to hereinabove, whereby the decision of the State to provide developed land equivalent to 15% of the acquired land to the khatedar/land owner in lieu of land being acquired, was communicated. It was clarified, that in case of allotment of.15% developed plots, no separate compensation would be payable. 52 .. A meeting under the chairmanship of the departmental minister was thereafter convened on 18.10.2001 to formulate a composite policy on various aspects and procedures in relation to allotment of 15% developed land, in lieu of the land acquired, in land acquisition cases. It was discussed, amongst others, that in many land acquisition cases, compensation had not been paid to the land owners. It G was eventually decided on the basis of the deliberations, that in cases where awards had been passed, but cash compensation could not be paid to the khatedars/land owners, one more opportunity to them to opt for the developed land,

H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 449 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

be offered. That the option was extended till 31.3.2002 and the allotment of the land was resolved to be made through Allotment Committee of the concerned organisation, was recorded. lt_was decided in specific terms, that the developed land in lieu of the acquired land would be generally allotted in the same area where the land Was acquired and if it was not possible to develop the scheme within a period of five months or it was not possible to offer l_and in the same area, it was only then that land would be allotted in some other scheme area. It was underlined that as far as possible, however, the concerned committee would endeavour to allot such land near c the scheme area. In terms of the decision, as a corollary, it was generally and primarily incumbent on the JOA to allot the developed land within the scheme area and any departure was contemplated only in the above two eventualities.

53Copy pinpoint53. The circular dated 13.12.2001, the pivot of the lis, is really in continuation of the circulars preceding it and is in reiteration of the otherwise unequivocal and unreserved decision of the State to offer 15% developed land to the khatedars/land owners in lieu of compensation for the land acquired. This is amply testified, amongst others, by the reference of the Circular dated 21.9.1999, referred to hereinabove. The following extract of the circular dated 13.12.2001, in our estimate, is determinatively revealing: "Hence, the State Government after considering this matter in detail has taken this decision that in such old cases in which award has been passed but the compensation could not be made to the khatedars till date, in these matters one more opportunity shall be given to the khatedars. Hence, now this provision is being made that such khatedars/landowners can present their options till 28.2.2002 and they will be allotted 15% developed land by the allotment committee of the concerned organisation after approval from the State

H

p. 450

A Government. If no allotment committee has been constituted in any organisation, then a Committee other than Jaipur Development Authority and Rajasthan Housing Board, shall be constituted of minimum three officers and a public representative from the Municipal B Corporations/boards ·or corporations which will give its report to its organization. The allotment shall be made with prior approval of the State Government."

54Copy pinpoint54. A prolonged lull followed, where after the letter datep 01.07.2005 was issued, offering lands at Lalchandpura and C Anantpura Villages to the appellants and other similarly situated, representing the same to be the 15% developed land in lieu of compensation as already resolved. The circular dated 27 .10.2005 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Urban Development and Housing Department thereafter sought to D enhance the extent of developed area to be allotted in lieu of the acquired lands/compensation from 15% to 25% (20% residential and 5% commercial);· Significantly, none of the circulars/letters dealing with the issue of allotment of developed land in lieu of compensation, was issued in the name of E Governor but a copy thereof had been marked to the Secretary of the JOA. However those dated 13.12.2001, 1.7.2005 and 27.10.2005 had been forwarded also to the Secretariat of the Chief Minister of the State for information and necessary action. F

55Copy pinpoint55. Before adverting to the Rules, it would be expedient to take note of the Order Nos. F(18)23 UDH/2/7 Jaipur dated 20 .7 .1998 and F.18(23)UDH/2/7, Jaipur dated 8. 7 .2004 of the Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan G and the Notification dated 5.3.1999 amending the Rules. In the Order dated 20.7.1998 issued under Rules21 and 22 of the Rules, the following arrangement for transaction of the departmental business pertaining to matters relating to the land acquisition and deacquisition was mandated as follows:

H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 451 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

A SN Post Work Work shall State Shall shall be be Minister presented examined disposed .before the bv of by Minister 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 1 to - - - - - B 105 106 Matters Group Dy. - Minister relating to Officer Secretary/ Land Secretary acqLisition & de: c agiLisifion 107 - - - - - to 110

56Copy pinpoint56. The notification No. F.27(2)Cab/99, Jaipur dated D 5.3.1999 issued under Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution of India occa.sioned an amendment, amongst others, to Rule 31 (1) of the Rules including therein, inter alia, the following clause: E "(ii) Cases raising questions of policy and all cases of administrative importance not already covered by the Second Schedule."

57Copy pinpoint57. Logically thus, by order dated 8.7.2004 issued as well under Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules the working F arrangement for the transaction of the departmental business on matters relating to deacquisition of land under acquisition and acquired land was redesigned as hereunder: SN Post Work shall Work shall Shall be be examined be disposed presented by of by before the G Minister 1 to 115 - - - - D. As per rule 31 of the Rules of Business and final disposal of the matters relating to the Department mentioned in II Schedule under Rule8 H

p. 452

A ·-·~ - - · ... ·- ·-

116to 117 118 Matters Group Dy. Minister/ relating to Officer Secretary/ I With de- Secretary/ : a1212roval

8 acquisition of land under Pr.· Secretary I of Chief Minister aggJisition and agguired land. ; 119to 121 - - - - - c

58Copy pinpoint58. A plain comparison of the texts of these two Orders i.e. 20. 7.1999 and 8. 7.2004 would demonstrate that whereas by the former, the issue was required to be presented before the departmental minister, under the latter, the authority on the D issue was departmental minister with the approval of the Chief Minister. It is, therefore, the plea of the respondents that following the amendment of the Rules on 5.3.1999, the circular dated 13.:12.2001, to assume the status of an enforceable State policy ought to have been approved by the Chief Minister E and that in absence thereof, it is wholly ineffectual.

59Copy pinpoint59. Apropos the Rules framed under Section 166(2) & (3) of the Constitution of India, the expression "Minister-in- charge" and "Minister of State" are defined in Rule 2 (f) as hereunder: F "'Minister-in-charge' nieans the Minister or Minister of State, if appointed to hold independent charge as the case may be, appointed by the Governor to be in-charge of the department of the Government to which the relevant case belongs." G Explanation: A case shall be deemed to belong to the department to which under the schedule to these rules, the subject matter thereof pertains or is mainly related.

H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 453 . [AMITAVAROY, J.]

'"Minister of State' means a Minister of State appointed A by the Governor to hold independent charge of a department or to assist a Minister in the discharge of his responsibilities or both."

60Copy pinpoint60. Part I of the Rules deals with the allocation and disposal of business where under in terms of Rule 4, the 8 business of the Government is to be transacted in the Secretariat Departments specified in the First Schedule and is to be classified and distributed between those departments as laid down therein. Rule 5 provides that the Governor shall, on the advice of the Chief Minister, allot among the Ministers C or Ministers of State the business of Government, by assigning one or more departments to the charge of a Minister. Rule 6 which prescribes the constitution of the departments of the Secretariat, enjoins that it would ordinarily consist of a Secretary to the Government who shall be the official head of that D department and of such other officers and servants subordinate to him as the Government may determine.

61Copy pinpoint61. As per Rule 8, subject to the orders of the Chief Minister under Rule 14, all cases referred to in the Second E Schedule to the Rules would be brought before the Council or a Sub-committee thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Rules contained in Part Ill. The restriction in matters in which finance department is required to be consulted under Rule 10 is carved out in the proviso to Rule 8. Rule 9 in categorical terms underlines that the Minister-in-charge or the Minister of State-in-charge of a department shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that department. While Rule 11 enjoins that all orders or instruments made or executed by or on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan shall be expressly made or executed in the name of the Governor, Rule 12 requires that every order or instrument of the Government shall be signed by a Secretary, a Special Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary etc. as enumerated therein so much so that such signature shall be H

p. 454

A deemed to be a proper authentication of such order or instrument.

62Copy pinpoint62. Part Ill of the Rules dwells upon the procedure of the Council of Ministers. In terms of Rule 14, all cases referred to in the Second Schedule shall be submitted to the Chief Minister, B through the Secretary to the Council after consideration by the Minister-in-charge or the Minister of State-in-charge, as the case may be, with a view to obtain his orders for circulation of the case under Rule 15 or for bringing it up for consideration at a meeting of the Council or Sub-Committee thereof. Such C laying would not be necessary if a case falls within the purview of a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet constituted under Cabinet Secretariat Order No. F.3(3)/Cab/81, dated 30.9.1981.

63Copy pinpoint63. The manner of departmental disposal of business is elucidated under Part-IV. Rule 21 predicates that except 0 otherwise provided by any other rule, disposal of business relating to items common to all departments shall be made in the manner specified in Appendix 'B' and for the disposal of business relating to other items, the Minister-in-Charge or the E Minister of State-in-Charge, as the case may be, by means of standing orders, give such directions as he thinks fit. Under· Rule 22, the standing orders referred to in Rule 21 shall be sent by the Minister-in-charge or the Minister of State-in- Charge, as the case may be, to the Governor and the Chief F Minister. Rule 31 lists the cases to be submitted to the Chief Minister before issuance of any order.

64Copy pinpoint64. Incidentally, the extracted clause of the notification dated 5.3.1999 appears at serial No. (iii) under Rule 31. Significantly, clause (xii) also mentions "cases raising question G of policy". As is evident from clause (xix), it would be competent for the Chief Minister to call forthe relevant papers/file(s), report and pass orders in any case involving a question of policy or a matter of urgent public importance, relating to any department when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, or when H

LALARAM v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 455 [AMITAVAROY, J.]

the case is referred to him by the Minister-in-Charge or the A Chief Secretary. Reverting to the Order dated 20.7 .1998 which patently replicated the standing order contemplated undeP Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules and was in force on the date on which the circular dated 13.12.2001 was issued, it authorised the departmental minister exclusively to deal with and take a 8 decision on matters relating to land acquisition and deacquisition. Our attention has not been drawn to any other order under the Rules after the amendment on 5.3.1999, superseding the same. The earliest in point of time as available is one dated 8.7.2004, whereby the departmental minister with the approval of the Chief Minister had been authorised to take decision on matters relating to deacquisition of land under acquisition and acquired land. Apart from the • fact that both these Orders are evidently under the hand of the departmental minister/state minister (independent charge), the unmistakable inference is that these had been issued with the sentient awareness of the prescripts of the Rules.

65Copy pinpoint65. To reiterate, the State in its additional affidavit dated 22.3.2013 in response to a categorical query of this Court as to whether the circular dated 31.12.2001 did convey a policy decision on the issue of allotment of land in lieu of land averred in clause (b) in answer to query No. 1 as hereunder: "Policy Circular dated 21.9.1999: This policy Circular provides for 15% developed land in lieu of cash compensation for the acquired land. provided that the award was not passed earlier and compensation had not been paid till then. This circular was issued with the approval of Minister In-charge of the Department."

66Copy pinpoint66. Rule 31 (1 )(ii) of Rules, to reiterate, after the amendment on 05.03.1999 did provide that the cases raising question of policy and all the cases of administrative im.portance not already covered by Second Schedule would have to be laid before the Chief Minister before any order is issued. H