‘JDA acted like a private land dealer’: Rajasthan High Court restores farmer’s land title

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Jaipur Development Authority over a farmer’s land stood lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since neither possession was taken nor compensation paid for over two decades, and restored the landowner’s title.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma, holding that the JDA had “acted like a private land dealer” in claiming the land, ruled that a poor farmer’s land could not be taken away in the manner asserted by the authority and that any such claim amounted to arbitrary deprivation of private property dehors the authority of law.

The Court observed: “These above facts clearly reflects the approach of JDA, it has acting like a private land dealer and has wrongfully claimed the land, which belongs to the writ petitioner.”

The matter arose from two intra-court appeals against a judgment dated 15 October 2015 of a Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition — one preferred by the original writ petitioner Jhutharam and others, and the other by the JDA. The dispute concerned land bearing Khasra No. 194, measuring 23 bighas and 8 biswas, at Village Beed Khatipura, Tehsil Jaipur, purchased by the petitioners in 1975.

The JDA had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23 October 1991 to acquire the land for the Chitrakoot urban development scheme, and an award was passed on 27 May 1995. The landowner, however, secured interim orders restraining dispossession from 1995, which were continued by the Supreme Court in an SLP in 2001. The State admitted that possession was never taken and that compensation was neither paid nor tendered — a cheque sent to the Land Acquisition Officer in 2002 was returned in view of the apex court’s stay.

In 2002, a JDA Settlement Committee allowed the land to be regularized on payment of 25 per cent of the reserved price of the Chitrakoot scheme, conditional on the farmer withdrawing his pending litigation. Jhutharam withdrew his SLP and deposited Rs 1,45,05,000 — more than half the demanded amount — but the State kept the decision in abeyance and ultimately declined to implement it.

On the question of lapse, the bench applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183. It noted that under that decision, a deemed lapse follows where, for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, possession had not been taken nor compensation paid. As both conditions were admittedly unsatisfied, the acquisition stood lapsed.

The Court further held: “Any such claim raised by the State authority amounts to an impermissible assertion of ownership dehors the authority of law and would, in effect, partake the character of arbitrary deprivation of private property.”

The bench also faulted the Single Judge for declaring sale deeds executed by the petitioners in 2014 void ab initio, observing that the validity of those deeds was neither challenged in the writ petition nor was any such relief sought by the respondents. It clarified that the land retains its agricultural character and can be put to non-agricultural use only after conversion under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

Allowing the farmer’s appeal and dismissing that of the JDA, the Court held that Jhutharam was entitled to ownership and continued possession of Khasra No. 194 and that the JDA had no claim over it. It directed that the amount deposited under the 2002 Settlement Committee decision be refunded with interest at 12 per cent per annum, with conversion charges under Section 90A liable to be adjusted from the refund should the landowner apply for conversion.

Title: Jhutharam & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1208/2015 connected with D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 19/2016 (arising from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2442/2015)

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:21438-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhusudhan Singh Rajpurohit & Mr. Harshil Bansal; Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary with Mr. Parth Singh Dhaked

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Tanay Goyal, Ms. Harshita Thakral & Ms. Dhriti Laddha