[2025:RJ-JP:26086-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 202/2016 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9138/2014 1. Rameshwar S/o Sh. Narsilal, 2. Laduram S/o Sh. Narsilal, 3. Hari Narayan S/o Sh. Narsilal, 4. Suraj S/o Sh. Narsilal, 5. Nanchhi Lal S/o Sh. Narsilal, 6. Phoola Devi W/o late Sh. Bhuri Lal, 7. Mangi Lal S/o Late Sh. Bhuri Lal, 8. Ramesh S/o Late Sh. Bhuri Lal All Resident of Village Manoriyawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Appellants-Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority through its Commissioner, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Scheme, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Commissioner (LANDS), Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Non-Petitioners-Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Ranvijay Singh Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Yuvraj Samant Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Jugment 14/07/2025 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of order passed on 01.02.2016 by the learned Single Judge in the matter of challenge to land acquisition proceedings. Though, challenge to the land acquisition [2025:RJ-JP:26086-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-202/2016] proceedings was repelled by learned Single Judge, while partly allowing 24 petitions including petitions of present appellants, it was directed that the respondents shall either pay compensation to the appellants, at the market value as prevailing during the period when the possession of their respective land was taken or allotment of 25% of the developed land as per circular dated 27.10.2005 to the appellants for the same within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. 3. The appellants herein did not proceed to take either of the option of either receiving compensation or submitting option of land as they all filed present appeal assailing legality and validity of the order passed by learned Single Judge. Since then, this appeal has remained pending. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that now, at this stage, as the land of the appellants have already been utilized for public purpose, they give up the challenge to land acquisition proceedings, however, the respondent-Development Authority may be directed to consider them for allotment of alternative land as per their scheme which was existing on the date when the acquisition had taken place and also on the date when the order was passed by learned Single Judge on 01.02.2016. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Jaipur Development Authority would submit that the scheme which was existing on the date of acquisition of land and the date on which the order was passed by learned Single Judge on 01.02.2016 since stands amended subsequently vide another circular dated 01.06.2022, wherein, it has been stipulated that in those cases where compensation has [2025:RJ-JP:26086-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-202/2016] been deposited, alternative land as proposed earlier could not be granted. 6. To our mind, the said circular would not adversely affect appellants as much as the appellants were allowed by learned Single Judge to give their option within 15 days vide order dated 01.02.2016. The reason for not taking the option was that the appellants were willing to exercise their right of appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in-fact all of them filed present appeal which has remained pending since then. 7. The appellants, at this stage, are not willing to press this appeal anymore in view of long lapse of time as the land stands acquired for certain public purpose and, therefore, the challenge to the acquisition is now given up. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it should be obligation on the part of Development Authority to consider their options if it is submitted within a period of 15 days from today. The circular, which was issued on 01.06.2022, should not come in the way of the appellants and they should not be denied the same treatment which was given to all other land owners under the same land acquisition proceedings merely because the appellants availed their statutory right of appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge. In our considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that the appellants should also be treated at par with those whose lands were acquired with their lands and who were offered alternative lands in lieu of compensation. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of, however, with liberty to the appellants to submit their option within a period of 15 days from today. If the options are submitted, appellants [2025:RJ-JP:26086-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-202/2016] claim for allotment of alternative land in lieu of compensation shall be examined on the basis of the scheme which was existing on the day the award was passed. It is made clear that subsequent modification in the scheme vide circular dated 01.06.2022 shall not be made a basis to reject the claim of the appellants if otherwise they are entitled to allotment of land as per the prevailing scheme of acquisition and allotment of alternative land in lieu of compensation. It goes without saying that the amount of compensation would not be payable to the appellants. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-GARIMA /141