Sudha Parhar vs Jaipur Development Authority

Alok Sharma, J.—One Hari Singh Chauhan, father of the petitioner, was a recorded khatedar of land admesuring 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura. The land was situated at Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg opposite World Trade Park, a premier commercial establishment. Hari Singh Chauhan now deceased was residing at Gurgaon. In his absence the said land was utilised by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for the widening of road without acquiring it under the provisions of the extant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or otherwise. In these circumstances the petitioner's father Hari Singh Chauhan submitted a representation before the JDA on 9-1-2004 and on several other occasions seeking allotment of land of equivalent value. Copies thereof have been annexed with the writ petition. The JDA apparently realising the illegality in utilising 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura in the ownership of the petitioner's father without authority of law, considered the matter at its Building and Plan Committee (BPC) of 10-3-2005 and took a decision to allotment 250 sq. meters residential plot in its Mahal Residential Scheme in exchange for the land of the petitioner's father unauthorisedly used for widening of JLN Marg. An allotment letter dated 31-5-2005 was issued by the JDA to the petitioner's father allotting him 252 sq. yards residential plot in pursuance of BPCs meeting of 10-3-2005. Reserve price for 2 sq. meters, being in excess of BPCs decision to allot a 250 sq. meters plot at its meeting of 10-3-2005 was charged as were certain other statutory charges aggregating to Rs. 3715/- in the process of allotment. Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan made a representation to the JDA on or about 18-6-2005, referring to the JDA's letter dated 31-5-2005 for allotment of a plot of 252 sq. meter in Mahal Yojna in exchange of land admeasuring 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura stating that the land utilised by the JDA without any authority of law was situated at a prime location in Jaipur City of which the market value was far more than the market value of the plot allotted. JDA was required to allot a suitable residential plot of equivalent value in vicinity of land utilised by it for road widening.

The JDA then allotted to Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan a plot of 252 sq. meters in its Chitrakoot residential scheme in lieu of the land earlier allotted in its Mahal Residential Scheme vide letter dated 29-6-2005. As in the earlier allotment reserve price for the additional 2 sq. meters @ Rs. 4950/- per sq. meter were charged alongwith other statutory charges in all aggregating to Rs. 25,593/-. This is reflected in the letter dated 29-6-2005 as available on record of the JDA which was perused in the course of hearing of writ petition. Thereupon referring to allotment of plot No. 9/653 in Chitrakoot residential scheme in lieu of the plot in Mahal Yojana, Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan informed the Commissioner JDA that the sum of Rs. 25,593/- (including Rs. 9900/- for extra 2 sq. meter) had been deposited with the JDA by him and the JDA therefore issue him possession letter, site plan and lease deed in respect of the said plot. Thus the allotment of plot No. 9/653, Chitrakoot Residential Scheme was accepted by Sh. Hari Singh Chauhan in exchange of 0.06 hectare land in Khasra No. 129 belonging to him and utilised by JDA in widening of JLN Marg. No protest was made, no caveats placed no demurer registered. Thereafter a lease deed was executed on behalf of H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan in favour of Hari Singh Chauhan on 30-6-2005. The lease deed was registered.

Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan expired on 19-10-2005 and this writ petition has been filed on 17-1-2006 by his daughter Sudha Parhar (hereinafter "the petitioner")

Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate appearing along with Narendra Kumar Singhal on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as the daughter and successor of late Hari Singh Chauhan is entitled to estate of the deceased which would include the right of compensation for immovable property belonging to her father. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been invoked to state that a person can not be deprived of his property save by authority of law. It is submitted that allotment of a residential plot of 252 sq. meter in size is a far away scheme in lieu of exchange for 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura situated in the prime commercial/institutional area of Jaipur city tantamounted to deprivation of property without authority of law. It has been submitted that even though a residential plot of 252 sq. meter was indeed allotted to petitioners father in the Chitrakoot Scheme, the JDA should be directed to allot an additional plot to an extent of 350 sq. meter in a prime area of Jaipur with equivalent DLC rate as that of JLN Marg. Alternatively monetary compensation computed on the basis of extant DLC rate along with interest and solatium ala the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be paid to the petitioner. It has been submitted that this court in the case of Surendra Kumar Golcha vs. JDA and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6674/1998) decided on 12-11-2013, dealing with a similar case of unauthorised utilisation of a citizen's immovable property, directed that the petitioner therein be allotted a parcel of land in exchange under Section 44 of the JDA Act with reference to current DLC rate of the area where the land of petitioner in aforesaid writ petition was situated. It has been pointed out that in fact this court in the aforesaid writ petition had also directed payment of mesne profit to the petitioner therein in a sum of Rs. 1 lac for unauthorised use of his land by the JDA without proper acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Counsel has further submitted that the acceptance of residential plot No. 9/653 in Chitrakoot residential scheme to an extent of 252 sq. meters by the petitioner's father should not be a drag on the petitioner's right to her father's estate and entitlement to allotment of a remainder plot admeasuring 350 sq. meter in an area at par on DLC rate with the land in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura unauthorisedly utilised by the JDA. Alternatively the petitioner should be paid money value for 350 Sq. Meters -- purportedly the remainder land, along with interest and solatium thereon. Mr. Maloo, learned Senior Advocate has also invoked, albeit not in as many words, the doctrine of economic coercion and JDA's dominant position stating that in view of long drawn proceedings, procedural hurdles and the advanced age of the petitioners father, he was put in a compelling state and reluctantly deposited the amount of Rs. 25,593/- including for the additional 2 sq. meters of plot No. 9/653, Chitrakoot Residential Scheme as demanded by the JDA and got executed lease deed of the said plot on 30-6-2005 without demur. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that in the compelling circumstances in which the petitioners father was put by the JDA, the petitioner should not be ousted of her right on the ground that her father having accepted plot No. 9/653, Chitrakoot Residential Scheme in exchange, had absolutely divested himself of any rights in 0.06 hectare land in Khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura.

Mr. Amit Kuri, learned counsel for the respondent JDA has submitted that the case set up by the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of estoppel. He submits that the petitioner's father, the recorded khatedar of land 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura had at the relevant time accepted allotment of residential plot No. 9/653 in Chitrakoot residential scheme of the JDA in lieu/exchange for his agricultural land admeasuring 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura. Counsel submits that the land used by the JDA was agricultural in nature as per revenue record, albeit situated in commercial/institutional area for which a residential plot of 252 sq. meter in a posh locality of Jaipur was allotted in exchange. Counsel submits that the petitioner's father Hari Singh Chauhan had the right to refuse JDA's offer and take his remedy available in law. Instead he chose to avail, despite his earlier misgivings on valuations, the JDAs exchange offer with reference to Section 44 of the JDA Act, and vide letter dated 29-6-2005 even deposited the reserve price in respect of 2 additional sq. meters of land in the allotment of 252 sq. meters i.e. plot No. 9/653, Chitrakoot Residential Scheme as JDA's BPC had offered allotment of only 250 sq. meters in lieu/exchange of 0.06 hectare land in Khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura. It is submitted that the said letter dated 29-6-2005 requesting the JDA to issue the lease deed, site plan in respect of plot No. 9/653 in Chitrakoot residential scheme in lieu of land 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura tantamounted to a completed agreement of exchange. The acceptance of the petitioner's father was absolute. There was no contemporaneous demur. The contract of exchange was duly executed and even thereafter no allegations of coercion made or even remotely asserted by the petitioner's father. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, this writ petition filed by the petitioner as the daughter of Hari Singh Chauhan, subsequent to the time he had ceased to have any right qua the land 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura after having divested himself completely of any right therein, is a gross abuse of the salutary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

Heard Considered.

It is indeed true that Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that a person is not to be deprived of his property save by authority of law. It is equally no doubt true that as the JDA had utilised the land admeasuring 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura belonging to Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan for widening of JLN Marg, it was bound to adequately compensate him either by way of exchange mutually agreed to or payment of monetary consideration by way of damages in accordance with common law, as land had not been acquired by process known to law i.e. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This court no doubt in the case of Surendra Kumar Golcha (supra) has directed the JDA to allot land to petitioner in that case of value equivalent to land unauthorisedly used with reference to current DLC rate of the area where the land of petitioner therein was situated. Yet a reading of the judgment in the case of Surendra kumar Golcha (supra) indicates that the petitioner in the aforesaid case was not burdened by an exchange agreed upon and executed in accordance with law, albeit despite an earlier protest but without demur simultaneous or subsequent to the exchange. The doctrine of "estoppel by conduct"/acquiescence, as relevant to the facts of the present case was not relevant in the Golcha's case. The doctrine is in the present case, compelling and binds the petitioner without any thing more.

In the instant case the BPC of the JDA on 10-3-2005 approved allotment of a plot of residential land admeasuring 250 sq. meters to Hari Singh Chauhan in lieu of agricultural land 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura belonging to him and utilised by the JDA for widening of JLN Marg. Albeit the land of the petitioner's father was situated in a commercial/institutional area but it was admittedly agricultural in nature. Following the petitioner's father's claim to allotment in exchange and despite his initial protestation of unequal valuation of land offered in exchange, finally on Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan's under letter dated 29-6-2005, the lease deed of the plot No. 9/653 in Chitrakoot residential scheme was executed in his name after he had made a categorical request for allotment in exchange as offered and even paid for the additional 2 sq. meter of land allotted over the 250 sq. meter offered in exchange by the JDA.

I am not inclined to accept the argument of petitioner's counsel that the petitioner's father at the relevant time oppressed by failing health and the prospects of a long drawn litigation with JDA was economically coerced into accepting what was offered. The doctrine of economic coercion has been evolved in different fact situations where resistance can be alarmingly prejudicial to the very viability of the one oppressed in a contractual relationship. Such a situation does not obtain in this case. Privity of contract is to be conferred sanctity which cannot be disturbed on the mere askance, more so at the instance of a successor to a party to a contract executed, signed and sealed. The defence of economic coercion to escape a contract is evidently an exception to the overarching principle of sanctity of contracts. Like all exceptions to a rule it has to be proved on evidence of probative worth as to the relationship, the circumstances and necessity of preservation of a contracting party. Circumventing an exchange by way of contract on the doctrine of economic coercion is even more daunting as an exchange involves mental processes and is based on unarticulated give-aways and take-a ways. The facts on record establish that by depositing Rs. 25,593/-, including a sum of Rs. 9900/- for the additional 2 sq. meter land, the petitioner's father had accepted the 250 sq. meter exchange offer by JDA. His letter dated 29-6-2005 does not indicate any objection as is now sought to be propounded by the petitioner before this court by harking back to earlier protestations.

Reliance placed by the Senior counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in case of Poonam Chand Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, is of no relevance in view of the fact that the petitioner's father himself accepted the offer of the JDA's BPC for allotment of a residential plot of 250 sq. meter in lieu of his agricultural land admeasuring 0.06 hectare in khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura utilised by the JDA for widening JLN Marg.

In my considered opinion, from the facts obtaining in the present case, it is evident that the JDAs exchange offer was accepted by the petitioner's father for allotment of a plot No. 9/653 in Chitrakoot Residential scheme admeasuring 250 sq. meters in lieu of 0.06 hectare agricultural land in Khasra No. 129 village Ramjipura. He even deposited price of the additional 2 sq. meters without demur indicative of his acceptance that 250 sq. meters of residential land in Chitrakoot residential scheme in exchange for 0.06 hectare land in Khara No. 129 village Ramjipura sufficed. Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan in fact clearly asked for execution of the lease deed as per the JDA's offer--his earlier protests as to valuation of land offered in exchange being less than his own land-- notwithstanding. With the resultant execution of the lease deed, the contract of exchange was fully executed and sealed. Mr. Hari Singh Chauhan stood divested of all rights in 0.06 hectare land in khasra No. 129 Village Ramjipura. Following his death no part of the land 0.06 hectare devolved on the petitioner and no cause of action accrued on her to lay this writ petition.

The writ petition is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.