Court directs deposit of Rs.10,000 towards Junior Advocates Welfare Fund and plantation of 25 shade bearing trees as conditions for hearing; emphasizes expeditious disposal of decade-old land acquisition reference
In a recent significant order dated September 16, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered a nuanced judgment in the matter of Parmila Gupta v. Jaipur Airport Authority and others, concerning a land acquisition reference pending since 2014. The writ petition challenged the closure of the petitioner's evidence by the trial court on grounds of repeated defaults.
The petitioner, Parmila Gupta, had filed a reference application under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, seeking adjudication on compensation and related claims for land acquired by the Jaipur Airport Authority. However, despite several opportunities, she failed to lead her evidence over the years. The trial court closed her evidence on September 17, 2019, as she was abroad from May to November 2019 and did not avail the chance to present her case.
Contesting the closure, the petitioner sought the High Court's intervention, citing her absence abroad as a reason and emphasizing the importance of deciding critical questions of law and fact on merit. The Rajasthan High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's negligence in prosecuting the case, noted the significance of the issues involved and exercised its writ jurisdiction to balance procedural strictness with substantive justice.
The Court granted the petitioner one final opportunity to lead her evidence, but with conditions to ensure seriousness and responsibility. These conditions include:
1. Deposit of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the Junior Advocates Welfare Fund managed by the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, strictly earmarked for purchasing law books for young lawyers practicing less than five years.
2. Plantation of 25 shade bearing trees in a public vicinity within 15 days, with photographic evidence and an undertaking to maintain the plants until they mature, with biannual status reports to the trial court until the conclusion of the case.
The Court underscored that failure to comply with these conditions or failure to record evidence on the fixed dates would result in no further opportunities, and the trial court could proceed in accordance with law.
Further, the Court expressed concern over the prolonged pendency of the reference, which has dragged on for more than 12 years, and mandated the trial court to expedite the disposal of the matter, discouraging unwarranted adjournments by either party.
This judgment reflects the court's approach to balance procedural discipline with the right to fair adjudication, emphasizing environmental responsibility and support for young legal professionals. It also serves as a stern reminder to litigants to diligently pursue their cases within reasonable timelines, especially in matters of public importance like land acquisition.
Bottom Line:
Land acquisition reference - Closure of evidence for repeated default - High Court granted one last opportunity to lead evidence in the interest of deciding important questions on merits, subject to deposit of costs and plantation of shade bearing trees, and directed expeditious disposal of long pending reference.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Section 3(b), Land Acquisition Act, 2013
Parmila Gupta v. Jaipur Airport Authority, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983489
