Rajasthan HC sets aside order directing JDA to allot 25% developed land to heirs in 1975 airport acquisition case

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a single-bench order that directed the Jaipur Development Authority to allot 25 per cent developed land to the heirs of original landholders. The khatedars’ land had been acquired in 1975 for the expansion of Jaipur Airport. A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain delivered the judgment on 17 April 2026.

The land in Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, was acquired under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. A Section 4 notification was issued on 21 August 1969 for the airport’s expansion. A Section 6 notification followed on 22 April 1973, and the award was passed on 17 May 1975.

According to JDA, possession of the various khasras was transferred through a Khabza-Fard on 23 November 1976. The original khatedars had refused to accept the compensation. JDA said the amount was deposited in the Reference Court in three tranches — on 10 February 1979, 12 July 1979 and 9 December 1999. In April 2017, following the dismissal of an earlier challenge, JDA removed encroachments and fenced the land.

The heirs of the original khatedars later approached the High Court through writ petitions filed in 2023. They relied on a State Government policy dated 24 September 2020, amended on 4 November 2020, and circulars of 1 June 2022 and 12 July 2024. Under that scheme, a landholder whose land had been acquired before 27 October 2005 could be allotted 25 per cent developed land in lieu of compensation. The developed land would comprise 20 per cent residential and 5 per cent commercial.

On 7 March 2026, a single-bench judge allowed both writ petitions and directed the State and JDA to allot the developed land within a month. JDA challenged that order in the present Division Bench appeals.

Appearing for JDA, counsel Amit Kuri submitted that the award of 1975 was fully executed long ago. Compensation had been deposited in the Reference Court after the khatedars refused to accept it. Possession had been taken in 1976 and, physically, again after the 2017 fencing exercise. The land had also been mutated in JDA’s name.

He told the court that the heirs had challenged the acquisition repeatedly, through writ petitions in 1974, 1975, 2010, 2015 and 2022. They had lost every time, including before the Supreme Court, which dismissed their SLP against the 2012 division-bench order. Filing fresh petitions in 2023 to claim 25 per cent developed land, he argued, was an abuse of the court’s process.

Appearing for the heirs, counsel Alankrita Sharma submitted that neither compensation had actually been paid nor physical possession taken from the khatedars. She said the land was still with the landholders. She was assisted by advocates Yogesh Kalla, Harshil Bansal and Nimisha Danga.

She relied on the division bench’s decision in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Sai Darshan Hotels and Motels Private Limited delivered on 16 March 2026. On that basis, she argued, the heirs were entitled to developed land under the government’s policy for pre-2005 acquisitions.

The division bench rejected the heirs’ claim that the land-acquisition dispute was still pending. It held that once compensation is deposited and possession is taken, the acquisition stands concluded and cannot be reopened on a fresh policy argument decades later.

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that satisfying either condition — taking possession of the acquired land or paying compensation — is enough to save an acquisition. Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed only where, for five years or more, neither step has been taken. The 2013 statute replaced the British-era Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority had also clarified who cannot claim a lapse. A landowner who had refused to accept tendered compensation cannot later argue that the acquisition had lapsed for non-payment. The same bar applies to a landowner who had sought a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act — the remedy for demanding higher compensation. The division bench found that the heirs in the present case fell squarely within that bar. No Section 18 reference had ever been made, and the compensation had been deposited because the khatedars had declined to accept it.

The court also drew on the Jodhpur Division Bench’s recent decision in LRs of Late Sh. Takhat Singh Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan delivered on 7 March 2026. That judgment clarified how the five-year “deemed lapse” window is measured. It is counted backwards from 1 January 2014 — the date the 2013 Act came into force — not from the date of the original award. Any claim that uses the date of award as the starting point is, in the court’s words, “misconceived.”

The bench recorded that the heirs had no right to assert that the land-acquisition dispute was still pending. It held they could not claim allotment of 25 per cent land in lieu of a compensation amount that had long been deposited. The single judge, the court said, had committed a “serious error” in allowing the writ petitions.

The court also noted that successive rounds of litigation by the same family amounted to a misuse of the court process. The heirs had filed petitions in 1974, 1975, 2010, 2015 and 2022 over land acquired in 1975. It cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha Vs. State of UP (2008) 1 SCC 560 and Krishna Lal Chawla Vs. State of UP (2021 SCC OnLine SC 191). Both judgments warn against repeated frivolous litigation.

The Division Bench allowed D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 347/2026 and 348/2026. It set aside the single judge’s order dated 7 March 2026 and dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5098/2023 and 9017/2023. No costs were imposed.

Case details