[2025:RJ-JP:6237] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10424/2019 1. Purushottam S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 287, Idsmt Colony, Chaksu, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. 2. Deepak S/o Shankar Lal Gupta, Resident Of Ward No. 40, Balbadi Mohalla, Chaksu, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. National Highway Authority Of India, New Delhi Through Project Director, Y.b. Singh Project Implementation Unit, 87, Ganga Vihar Colony, Behind Rawat Palace, Dausa, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa. 2. Authorized Officer, Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy District Collector, Lalsot, District Dausa, Raj. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Lalsot, District Dausa, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Adv. with Mr. R. P. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Mr. Dheeraj Palia, Adv. & Mr. Ashish Vijay, Adv. for Mr. Harish Chandra Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/02/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs) against the order dated 31.05.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No.05/2019, whereby appeal filed by the respondent No.1- [2025:RJ-JP:6237] (2 of 4) [CW-10424/2019] defendant (for short 'the defendant') has been allowed and the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short 'the trial court') in Misc. Case No.88/2018 allowing the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs, has been set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs filed a suit as well as temporary injunction application against the defendants in which it was stated that defendants wanted to enhance the width of National Highway-11A for Dausa, Lalsot, Kothun Division. Even they have issued a notification regarding acquisition of land bearing Khasra No.55, which was subsequently bifurcated in new Khasra No.713/55, 715/55, 716/55, 717/55, 718/55 and 719/55. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that subsequently Khasra No.715/55 was changed to Khasra No.934/55. The plaintiff is owner of land of Khasra No.934/55 admeasuring 2 bigha 8 biswa out of which he had converted the land admeasuring 1645.39 square meter for industrial purposes which is new Khasra No.934/55/1 and rest of the land is agriculture land in Khasra No.934/55/2 admeasuring 1 bigha 15 biswa. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that defendants wanted to encroach the plaintiff's land admeasuring 1011 square meter from the industrial land and admeasuring 621 square meter from the agricultural land but they have not given the compensation on account of acquisition of these lands. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 12.04.2019. Defendant filed an [2025:RJ-JP:6237] (3 of 4) [CW-10424/2019] appeal against the said order. The appellate court vide order dated 31.05.2019 wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the order of the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that it is an admitted position that defendant wanted to construct the road on the plaintiff's land and they have no right to raise the construction on the plaintiffs' land without giving compensation. So, order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the appellate court be set aside and order passed by the trial court be restored. Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submits that Khasra No.55 was bifurcated in Khasra No.713/55, 715/55, 716/55, 717/55, 718/55 and 719/55. Khasra No.715/55 was converted into Khasra No.934/55. Plaintiffs filed the objection regarding compensation before the concerned authority. As per Section 63 of the Land Acquisition Act, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, appellate court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the order passed by the trial court. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that dispute regarding compensation was pending between the parties. Appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that suit regarding acquisition proceeding is barred under Section 63 of the Land Acquisition Act. So, in my considered opinion, [2025:RJ-JP:6237] (4 of 4) [CW-10424/2019] appellate court had not committed any error in allowing the appeal filed by the defendant. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /115