HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 348/2025 URN: WMAP / 675U / 2025 1. Miran Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Gagan Sachdeva, Registered Office 12/57, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. 2. SNK Realtors Pvt. Ltd., through Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Ajay Madan Son Of Shri V.k. Madan, R/o C-6/51, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi-110016. 3. Swatantra Land And Finance Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Mr. Ajay Madan Son of Shri V.k Madan, R/o C-6/51, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi- 110016. 4. Sanjay Kapoor Son of Shri Capt. S.P. Kapoor, Resident of 8/1, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Ajay Madan S/o Shri V.k. Madan, R/o C-6/51, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi- 110016. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Awas Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary to The Government, Urban Development And Housing Department Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Land Acquisition Officer, Urban and Development Department, Rajasthan, Office at Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa Mr. Priyanshu Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar, AAAG Mr. R.A. Katta Mr. Divyansh Mathur Mr. M.K. Dhakad HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order (2of 4) [WMAP-348/2025] 20/07/2026 1. The case in hand has had cantankerous litigation preceded by the instant application dated 17.07.2025, which has been filed by the appellants seeking modification of the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as under:- "Heard. It is unfortunate that in the matter of acquisition of land which took place way back in the year 2013, till date no land has been allotted to the appellants, as directed by learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had to file this writ appeal anticipating that the direction of the learned Single Judge for allotment of land is not likely to be complied with because of pendency of various disputes. The statement made by learned counsel for the appellants stands fortified from the contents of the application for taking documents on record. It only discloses that there are various difficulties in making allotment of land to the appellants. We are of the view that persons, whose lands are taken, cannot be kept deprived of appropriate compensation either in the form of monetary benefits or land. There is failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge passed way back on 01.12.2016. Even though, there was no interim order, the respondents till date are not in a position to allot any plot to the appellants, nor they have made any allotment. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the respondents shall pay monetary compensation in accordance with the award to all the appellants within a period of three months. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. " 2. It is thus borne out that the applicants/appellants' lands were acquired as far back as 2013. By order dated 01.12.2016, ibid, the learned Single Judge directed that land be allotted to the appellants in lieu of the acquired land. Despite the absence of any interim order restraining compliance, no allotment was made for nearly eight years thereafter. 2.1 The then Co-ordinate Bench, by the order dated 17.09.2024, proceeded on the foundational principle that persons whose lands are (3of 4) [WMAP-348/2025] taken cannot be kept deprived of appropriate compensation, whether in the form of money or land. Finding a clear failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge, and finding them unable, even at that stage, to allot any plot, the Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of substituting the remedy i.e. the respondents were directed to pay monetary compensation in accordance with the award to all the appellants within three months, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. 3. It has since transpired that the impediment to allotment of land by the Rajasthan Housing Board was, inter alia, the pendency of certain litigation concerning the acquired land. 4. Learned counsel for the Rajasthan Housing Board, on instructions, candidly submits that no litigation qua the acquired land remains sub judice as on date. This position is duly stated in the reply filed to the application and stands borne out from Annexures R-1 and R-2. 5. With the impediment removed, learned counsel for the Rajasthan Housing Board submits that the Board is now in a position to take expeditious steps to allot land to the applicants. It is now submitted that, should the applicants be willing to accept land instead of money, the order dated 17.09.2024 may then be modified to restore the original remedy of allotment in place of monetary compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants is also ad idem with the aforesaid suggestion of the learned counsel for the Board. The applicants, whose consistent grievance has been deprivation of land, are willing to accept allotment in lieu of monetary compensation, he states. (4of 4) [WMAP-348/2025] 7. In view of the consensus, and since the substitution of monetary compensation by the order dated 17.09.2024 was occasioned solely by the then-existing inability of the respondents to allot land, an inability which no longer subsists, the order dated 17.09.2024 is modified as under: "Instead of payment of monetary compensation in accordance with the award to all the appellants, the appellants' rights of allotment of land shall be determined proportionate to the land originally acquired from them, in terms of the original award dated 11.03.2016, which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge culminating in the order dated 01.12.2016." 8. It is made clear that the effect of this modification is to revive and implement the direction of the learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2016 for allotment of land, the very relief the appellants had originally sought and obtained. Since both counsel have jointly agreed to the implementation of that order, no further proceedings are warranted before this Court. 9. The application is accordingly disposed of. The non-applicants/respondents are directed to take steps for allotment of land, in terms of paragraph 7 above, within three months from the date this order is uploaded on the official website of this Court. 10. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 15/Aman/Prateek