Enforceable developed-land allotment policy upheld, with entitlement to developed plots and Tribunal jurisdiction confirmed.

A State policy on allotting developed land in lieu of compensation was treated as enforceable because it formed part of a continuing course of official action and could not be avoided on a technical objection under Article 166. The Court further held that entitlement under the policy was to developed plots, not undeveloped alternate sites, and that delay attributable to the State could not be used to dilute the promised benefit. It also found the Tribunal proceedings maintainable, as the development authority acted as the State's implementing instrumentality and the statutory jurisdiction was broad enough to examine the allotment dispute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the circular dated 13.12.2001 constituted an enforceable policy decision of the State governing allotment of developed land in lieu of compensation for acquired land; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to allotment of 15% developed land in a developed scheme area, and not to undeveloped alternate sites; (iii) whether the challenge before the Tribunal and the consequential directions for allotment were maintainable under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.

Issue (i): Whether the circular dated 13.12.2001 constituted an enforceable policy decision of the State governing allotment of developed land in lieu of compensation for acquired land.

Analysis: The circular was not treated in isolation but as part of a continuing policy beginning with earlier circulars and ministerial decisions that provided for allotment of developed land in lieu of compensation. The record showed that the departmental minister was then competent under the Rajasthan Rules of Business to take a decision on land acquisition and release matters, and the subsequent conduct of the State in acting upon the policy showed that the circular was not a mere informal note. The objection based solely on Article 166(1) and (2) was held insufficient, and the State was not allowed to resile from a policy repeatedly implemented over time.

Conclusion: The circular dated 13.12.2001 was held to be an enforceable State policy.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to allotment of 15% developed land in a developed scheme area, and not to undeveloped alternate sites.

Analysis: The policy required allotment of developed land, normally in the same scheme area or near the acquisition site, and the meaning of developed land had to accord with the statutory conception of development and amenities under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. The sites offered by the respondents were found not to be fully developed, while some developed sites in areas such as Vidyadhar Nagar remained available earlier and the State had itself allotted land there to similarly situated persons. The Court held that the appellants could not be forced to accept undeveloped land or have their entitlement measured by present-day market equivalence after decades of delay attributable to the respondents.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to allotment of 15% developed land in suitable developed plots, including at Vidyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal and Vaishali Nagar as directed.

Issue (iii): Whether the challenge before the Tribunal and the consequential directions for allotment were maintainable under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.

Analysis: The Court noted that the JDA was the implementing instrumentality of the State's decision and that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 was wide enough to examine the grievance arising out of the allotment process. The attempt to treat the dispute as non-maintainable was rejected in light of the functional amalgam between the State and the JDA and the statutory duty under Section 90 of the Act requiring the JDA to act according to State policy and directions.

Conclusion: The proceedings before the Tribunal were held maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The policy on developed land in lieu of compensation was held binding on the State and enforceable against the JDA, and the appellants were granted concrete relief by way of allotment of developed land in specified developed schemes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State repeatedly adopts and acts upon a policy of allotting developed land in lieu of compensation, it cannot repudiate that policy on a belated technical objection, and a land loser is entitled to enforce the policy through judicial relief when the promised developed land has not been provided.

---