Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Ram & Ors vs State & Ors on 8 September, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14641 / 2013
1. Narayan Ram, son of Shri Lichman Ram, aged about 55 years,
by caste Patel, resident of village Heera Khera, tehsil Luni, district
Jodhpur
2. Girdhari Ram, Son of Shri Heera Ram, aged about 69 years, by
caste Jat, resident of Village Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
3. Surta Ram, Son of Shri Rawat Ram, aged about 74 years, by
caste Patel, resident of village Heera Khera, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
4. Gopa Ram @ Gopal son of shri Phusa Ram aged about 48 years,
by caste Jat, resident of Village Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
5. Moti Ram, son of Shri Mangla Ram, aged about 65 years, by
caste Jat, resident of Village Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
6. Girdhari Ram, Son of Shri Phosa Ram, aged about 55 years, by
caste Jat, resident of Village Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
7. Bhanwar Lal, son of Shri Deepa Ram, aged about 50 years, by
caste Jat, resident of Village Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
8. Mohan Ram, Son of shri Birdha Ram, aged about 42 years, by
caste Jat, resident of Village Gangana, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
9. Kana Ram, Son of Shri Bhera Ram, aged about 60 years, by
caste Jat, resident of village Heera Khera, tehsil Luni, district
Jodhpur.
10. Rawat Ram son of Shri Moti Ram, aged about 48 years, by
caste Jat, resident of village Pal, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
CONNECTED WITH
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5374 / 2015
Moola Ram S/o Chutara Ram, Aged about 56 years, By - caste
Pital, R/o Gram Heerakhera, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5376 / 2015
1. Bhudha Ram & Ors S/o Kharta Ram, Aged about 50 years,
2. Lr's Bhanwara Ram S/o Magna Ram,
2/1. Kuma Ram S/o Late Shree Bhanwara Ram, Aged about
40 years.
2/2. Shohan Ram, S/o Late Shree Bhanwara Ram, Aged about
35 years,
2/3. Kheti Devi W/o Late Shree Bhanwara Ram, Aged about
60 years.
3. Bheeya Ram S/o Magna Ram, Aged about 60 years, ]
3
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
4. Bhudha Ram S/o Magna Ram, Aged about 52 years,
5. Pura Ram S/o Magna Ram, Aged about 50 years,
6. Jhamu Devi W/o Gunesh Ram, Aged about 65 years,
7. Jeeya Ram S/o Gunesh Ram, Aged about 48 years,
8. Jora Ram S/o Gunesh Ram, Aged about 48 years,
9. Chandgi W/o Roopa Ram, Aged about 75 years,
10. Jagdish S/o Roopa Ram, Aged about 35 years,
11. Imli D/o Roopra Ram, Aged about 49 years,
12. Jaiti D/o Roopa Ram, Aged about 45 years,
13. Sukhi D/o Roopa Ram, Aged about 38 years,
14. Gula Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged about 70 years,
15. Luna Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged about 65 years,
16. Ruga Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged about 55 years,
17. Kesa Ram S/o Jairoop Ram, Aged about 60 years,
18. Chaina Ram S/o Jairoop Ram, Aged about 58 years,
19. Babu Lal S/o Jairoop Ram, Aged about 52 years,
20. Peera Ram S/o Kharta Ram, Aged about 44 years,
21. Beeri W/o Kharta Ram, Aged about 70 years,
All B/c Jat, R/o Gram Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
4
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5382 / 2015
1. Pola Ram S/o Karnaram, Aged about 48 years, B/c Pital, R/o
Gram Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
2. Gawari W/o Karnaram, Aged about 78 years, B/c Pital, R/o
Gram Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
3. Birdaram S/o Karnaram, Aged about 58 years, B/c Pital, R/o
Gram Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
4. Urjaram S/o Karnaram, Aged about 50 years, B/c Pital, R/o
Gram Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
5. Rookari Karnaram, Aged about 52 years, B/c Pital, R/o Gram
Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
6. Sita D/o Karnaram, Aged about 45 years, B/c Pital, R/o Gram
Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5383 / 2015
1. Jeeya Ram S/o Lichaman Ram, Aged about 66 years,
2. Purkha Ram S/o Lichaman Ram, Aged about 68 years,
3. Sohan Lal S/o Kishan Lal,Aged about 36 years,
4. Chandani W/o Kishan Lal, Aged about 58 years,
5. Lr's Of Ananda Ram S/o Bashti Ram
5/1. Bhura Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 60 years,
5/2. Ganesh Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 58 years,
5/3. Lumba Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 58 years,
5
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
5/4 LR's of Bhika Ram S/o Ananda Ram
5/4/1 Pokar Ram S/o Bheekh Ram, Aged about 35 years,
5/4/2 Mathura W/o Bheekh Ram, Aged about 55 years,
All by caste Jat., R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5384 / 2015
Tilok Ram S/o Chutara Ram, Aged about 58 years, B/c Pital, R/o
Gram Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5386 / 2015
6
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
1. Sura Ram S/o Shera Ram, Aged about 52 years,
2. Kena Ram s/o Shera Ram, Aged asbout 57 years,
3. Jasa Ram S/o Shera Ram, aged about 47 years,
All by - caste Pital, R/o Gram Heerakhera, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5387 / 2015
1. Daula Ram S/o Narayan Ram, Aged about 31 years,
2. Jetha Ram S/o Narayan Ram, Aged about 29 years,
3. Gordhan Ram S/o Narayan Ram, aged about 27 years,
4. Mohini Devi W/o Narayan Ram, Aged about 58 years,
All by- caste Jat, R/o Gram Salawas, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
7
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5980 / 2015
1. Bhala Ram S/o Puna Ram, Aged about 57 years,
2. Jora Ram S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged about 45 years,
3. Smt. Mohini Devi W/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 45 years,
4. Surta Ram S/o Jayroop Ram, Aged about 53 years,
5. LR's Ananda Ram S/o Basti Ram
5/1. Bhura Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 60 years,
5/2. Ganesh Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 58 years,
5/3. Lumba Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged about 50 years,
5/4. Lr's Bhika Ram S/o Ananda Ram
5/4/1. Pokar Ram s/o Bhika Ram, Aged about 35 years,
5/4/2. Mathura W/o Bheeka Ram, Aged about 55 years,
6. Manju W/o Jora Ram, aged about 35 years,
7. LR's Harman Ram S/o Puna Ram
7/1. Prabhu Ram S/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 24 years,
7/2. Shera Ram S/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 21 years,
7/3. Bhana Ram S/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 19 years,
7/4. Madiya Devi W/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 46 years,
All by- caste Jat, R/o Gram Heerakhera, Tehsl Luni, Distt. Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
8
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5981 / 2015
1. Deepa Ram S/o Sona Ram, Aged about 53 years,
2. Kewal Ram S/o Sona Ram, Aged about 72 years,
Both By- caste Pital, R/o Gram Heerakhera, Tehsil Luni, Distt.,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5984 / 2015
1. Harman Ram S/o Bora Ram, Aged about 72 years,
2. Surta Ram S/o Bora ram, Aged about 78 years,
3. Bheeka Ram S/o Bora ram, Aged about 74 years,
4. Bhaga Ram S/o Bora ram, Aged about 70 years,
All By- caste Pital, R/o Gram Heerakhera, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
9
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5995 / 2015
1. Jayroop Ram S/o Rama Ram, Aged about 66 years,
2. Hadman Ram S/o Kewal Ram, Aged about 47 years,
3. Prakash S/o Oma Ram, Aged about 13 years, Minor through
Natural guardian mother Smt. Dhapu Devi.
4. Pooja D/o Oma Ram, Aged about 11 years, Minor hrough
Natural guardian mother Smt. Dhapu Devi.
5. Dhapu Devi W/o Oma Ram, Aged about 39 years,
6. Gajari Devi W/o Kewal Ram, Aged about 76 years,
7. Kamala Devi D/o Kewal Ram, Aged about 52 years,
8. Pukli Devi D/o Kewal Ram, Aged about 49 years,
9. Sari Devi D/o Kewal Ram, Aged about 45 years,
10. Bheeya Ram S/o Basta Ram, Aged about 50 years.
11. Mohan Ram S/o Basta Ram, Aged about 37 years,
12. Heera Ram S/o Jagmal Ram, Aged about 27 years,
13. Dharma Ram S/o Jagmal Ram, Aged about 25 years,
14. Jhumar Ram S/o Jagmal Ram, Aged about 23 years,
15. Tipu Devi W/o Jagmal Ram, Aged about 45 years,
16. Jeevi Devi D/o Basta Ram, Aged about 40 years,
17. Varju Devi D/o Basta Ram, Aged about 78 years,
18. Bhala Ram S/o Hareeg Ram, Aged about 30 years,
19. Kumbha Ram S/o Shiva Ram, Aged about 46 years.
All by caste Jat., R/o Doli Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
10
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5996 / 2015
Surta Ram S/o Jayroop Ram, Aged about 53 years, By caste Jat.,
R/o Doli Heerkhera, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2222 / 2016
11
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
Mamta Bharti W/o Narendra Bharti, Aged about 40 years, By
caste Brahmin R/o Bharat Coloni Ship House Jodhpur, through
power of Attorney Holder Shri Vipin Lunker S/o Lat. Prakashmal
Lunker R/o 383- B, Laxminagar Paota, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2223 / 2016
1. Viram Ram S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 35 years,
2. Shohan Lal S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 45 years,
3. Badrinarayan S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 55 years
4. Lumba Ram Gumana Ram, Aged about 60 years
5. Hari Ram Gumana Ram, Aged about 50 years
All by- caste Kumhar R/o Gram Boranada, Tehsil Luni Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
12
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2224 / 2016
1. Bhagirath S/o Ganga Ram, Aged about 27 years,
2. Jagadish S/o Ganga Ram, Aged about 25 years,
3. Sumer S/o Ganga Ram, Aged about 21 years,
4. Sukhi Devi W/o Ganga Ram, Aged about 47 years,
5. Dharama Ram S/o Birada Ram, Aged about 50 years.
6. Mohan ram S/o Birada Ram, Aged about 42 years.
7. Mana Ram S/o Bhanwara Ram, Aged about 33 years.
8. Santi W/o Bhanwara Ram, Aged about 55 years
9. Kuma Ram S/o Birada Ram, aged about 40 years.
10. Biya Ram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged about 55 years.
11. Jiya Ram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged about 40 years
12. Balu Ram S/o Kera Ram, Aged about 22 years.
13. Rambha Devi W/o Kera Ram, Aged about 48 years.
14. Dinesh S/o Asu Ram, Aged about 14 years
15. Mukesh S/o Asu Ram, Aged about 13 years. Through the
natural guardian his mother Smt. Papli Devi W/o Asu Ram Aged
abut 40 years.
16. Smt. Phuli Devi W/o Raju Ram, Aged abut 62 years.
17. Smt. Gehari Devi W/o Anna Ram, Aged about 52 years.
18. Kharta Ram S/o Mangala Ram, Aged about 45 years.
19. Mohan Ram S/o Mangala Ram, Aged about 48 years.
20. Puna Ram S/o Mangala Ram, Aged about 40 years.
21. Om prakash S/o Mangala Ram, Aged about 34 years.
22. Badri Narayan S/o Deepa Ram, Aged about 25 years.
23. Smt. Ganga W/o Deepa Ram, Aged about 52 years.
All By- caste Jat, R/o Gram Salawas, Tehsil Lluni, Distt. Jodhpur.
13
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
17. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2225 / 2016
Babu Lal Bishnoi S/o Jetha Ram, Aged about 52 years, By- caste
Bishnoi R/o Shankali ki Dhani Ramrawash Kalan Jodhpur, Through
power of Attorney Holder Shri Vipin Lunker S/o Lat. Prakashmal
R/o 383- B, Laxminagar Poata Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2226 / 2016
Manju Lunker W/o Vipin Lunker, Aged about 35 years, By- caste
Jain R/o Plot No. 383 B Laxmi Nagar Poata, Jodhpur.
14
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
19. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2227 / 2016
Ravindra Jain S/o Ashok Raj Jain, Aged about 30 years, B/c Jain
R/o Sardarpura Jodhpur, Through power of Attorny Holder Shri
Vipin Lunker S/o Late. Prakashmal Lunker, R/o 383-B, Laxminagar
Paota, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
15
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
20. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2228 / 2016
Girdhari Ram S/o Hira Ram, aged about 74 years, By- caste Jat,
R/o Borandada, Tehsil Luni, Distt., Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
21. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2229 / 2016
Harish GoyalS/o Banshi Lal Goyal, Aged about 38 years, B/c Goyal
R/o Subhash Nagar Extension, Jodhpur, Through power of
Attorney Holder Shri Vipin Lunker S/o Lat. Prakashmal Lunker R/o
383-B, Laxminagar Paota Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
22. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2312 / 2016
1. Jhumar Ram S/o Oma Ram, Aged about 22 years,
2. Sau Devi W/o Oma Ram, Aged about 42 years,
16
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
3. Narmada D/o Oma Ram, Aged about 20 years,
4. Sangeeta D/o Oma Ram, Aged about 18years,
5. Rinku D/o Oma Ram, Aged about 17 years,
6. Piriya D/o Oma Ram, Aged about 15 years,
7. Puja D/o Oma Ram, Aged about 13 years,
Petitioner No.05 to 07 Through the natural guardian his
mother Smt. Sau Devi W/o Oma Ram, Aged about 42 years.
8. Gunesh Ram S/o Thana Ram, Aged about 40 years,
9. Bhudha Ram S/o Thana Ram, Aged about 25 years,
10. Sau Devi W/o Thana Ram, Aged about 60 years,
11. Basanti W/o Kishana Ram, Aged about 32 years,
12. Manish S/o Kishana Ram, Aged about 13 years,
13. Khusbu D/o Kishana Ram, Aged about 10 years
Petitioner No. 12 & 13 through the natural guardian his
mother smt. Basanti W/o Kishana Ram, Aged about 32
years,
All B/c Jat, R/o Jato Ka Bas Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
23. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2313 / 2016
1. Mangala Ram S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 70 years,
17
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
2. Bhera Ram S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 65 years,
3. Narayan Ram S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 53 years,
4. Deepa Ram S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 60 years,
5. Ganga Ram S/o Gumana Ram, Aged about 58 years,
6. Bala Ram S/o Hema Ram, Aged about 32 years,
7. Smt. Imi D/o Hema Ram Ram, Aged about 32 years,
All B/c Jat R/o Jato ka Bash Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2314 / 2016
1. Sohan Lal S/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 35 years,
2. Jawana Ram S/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 45 years,
3. Meemo Devi W/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 65 years,
4. Papi Devi D/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 40 years,
5. Vimla Devi S/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 38 years,
6. Anada Ram S/o Ruga Ram, Aged about 65 years,
7. Bora Ram S/o Ruga Ram, Aged about 55 years,
All B/c Jat, R/o Jato Ka Bas Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
18
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sercretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer -SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
25. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2316 / 2016
Lr's Of Bena Ram
1. Ananda Ram S/o Bena Ram Aged about 43 years.
2. Bhura Ram S/o Bena Ram aged about 45 years.
3. Jagadish S/o Bena Ram Aged about 40 years.
All by caste Jat., R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
26. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 / 2016
19
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
1. Sohan Lal S/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 35 yars,
2. Jawana Ram S/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 45 years,
3. Meemo Devi W/o Jayarup Ram , Aged about 65 years.
4. Papi Devi D/o Jayarup Ram, Aged about 38 years.
5. Vimla Devi S/o Jayarup Ram Aged about 38 years
6. Ananda Ram S/o Ruga Ram, Aged about 65 years,
7. Bora Ram S/o Ruga Ram, Aged about 55 years,
All by caste Jat., R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
27. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335 / 2016
Manga Ram S/o Hira Ram, Aged about 55 years, By caste Jat R/o
Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
20
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
28. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2336 / 2016
Basti Ram S/o Achala Ram, Aged about 65 years, By- caste Jat
R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
29. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2758 / 2016
1. Puna Ram S/o Birama Ram, Aged about 30 years,
2. Rama Ram S/o Birama Ram, Aged about 35 years,
3. Chiri Devi D/o Birama Ram, Aged about 29 years.
4. Kamla D/o Birama Ram Aged about 27 years.
5. Jani Devi W/o Birama Ram, Aged about 60 years.
All by- caste Jat R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
21
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
30. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2759 / 2016
1. Ogar Ram S/o Shanwal Ram, Aged about 60 years,
2. Luna Ram S/o Shanwal Ram, Aged about 45 years,
All by- caste Jat R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
31. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7933 / 2016
1. Ganesh Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged about 50 years,
2. Jai Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged about 60 years
3. Shukh Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged about 45 years.
4. Oma Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged about 40 years.
5. Anchi Devi W/o Rupa Ram, Aged about 80 years.
22
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
All by- caste Jat R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
Versus
----Respondent
32. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8008 / 2016
Puna Ram S/o Jetha Ram, Aged about 38 years, By- caste Jat R/o
Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
Versus
----Respondent
33. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5388/2015
1. Bhala Ram S/o Puna Ram, Aged about 61 years,
2. Viram Ram S/o Bhaga Ram, Aged about 65 years,
3. Bhudha Ram S/o Bhaga Ram, Aged about 57 years,
23
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
4. Mohan Ram S/o Bhaga Ram, Aged about 55 years,
5. Sajni W/o Bhaga Ram, Aged about 85 years,
6. LR's Haraman Ram S/o Late Shree Puna Ram
6/1. Prabhu Ram S/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 24 years,
6/2. Shera Ram S/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 21 years,
6/3. Bhana Ram S/o S/o Hadman Ram, Aged about 19 years,
6/4. Madiya Devi W/o Hadman Ram, Aged about -- years,
All by- caste Jat R/o Jato ka Bas Boranda, Tehsil Luni, Distt.
Jodhpur.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Industries
Departmet, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tialk Marg, Jaipur through its
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer- SDO, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
---Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr M.S.Singhvi, Sr. Counsel assisted by
Mr Sunil Beniwal
Mr Akhilesh Rajpurohit
Mr Vivek Aggarwal
Mr Anupam Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr P.R.Singh-AAG
Mr Dinesh Ojha
Mr Sanjeet Purohit
Mr Rajat Arora
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 24 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] REPORTABLE 08/09/2017 These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of the notification dated 12.08.2010 issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Land Acquisition Act') for acquisition of 3151 Bighas, 4 Biswas and 12 Biswansi of land of villages Salawas, Boranada and Heerkhera of Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur for extension of industrial area of Boranada. The petitioners have also challenged the publication of notice under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the said land and the final award passed. All the petitioners are affected persons, whose land comes under the impugned notification.
The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the impugned notification was issued on 12.08.2010. Sub- Divisional Officer, Luni was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'LAO'). Final notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26.09.2011 and the award is passed by the LAO on 24.09.2013.
It is also not in dispute that for the same land notified in the impugned notification, earlier also a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the 25 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] year 2005, however, the said acquisition proceedings lapsed as the same could not be finalized by issuing the award within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The petitioners have challenged the impugned notification and the acquisition proceedings mainly on the following grounds:
(A) Mandatory procedure laid down under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has not been followed by the LAO.
(B) Final award issued by the LAO on 24.09.2013 is incomplete.
(C) The land sought to be acquired vide impugned notification falls within periphery control belt as per the master plan of Jodhpur City for the year 2002 to 2023 and, therefore, without making essential changes in the master plan, industrial area cannot be set up. The land sought to be acquired is adjoining to Jodhpur, situated in South-West side and as per the master plan of Jodhpur City, the land sought to be acquired cannot be used for industrial purpose.
(D) The set up of industrial area on the land sought to be acquired is in violation of norms fixed by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India with 26 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] suggestion that industrial area should be located 50 kms. away from the urban limits.
The challenge of the petitioners to the impugned notification and the subsequent acquisition proceedings are countered by the respondent-State and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'RIICO') by raising the following contentions:
(I) All the writ petitions have been filed after passing of the final award. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(II) The LAO has decided the objections raised by some of the Khatedars under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act after following due procedure and after application of mind.
(III) Award dated 24.09.2013 is complete in all respects and cannot be said to be incomplete.
(IV) Even if the land falls within periphery control belt as per the master plan of Jodhpur City, the same can be used for industrial purpose.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr M.S.Singhvi assisted by Mr Sunil Beniwal has argued that the acquisition proceedings initiated vide impugned notification are vitiated as the LAO 27 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] has not followed the procedure laid down under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is argued that the provisions of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the said provisions vitiates the acquisition proceedings. It is further argued that the LAO is duty bound to objectively consider the objections raised by any objector and thereafter can make recommendations by detailing out the reasons as to why the objections filed by the objectors are liable to be accepted or rejected and make recommendations.
It is contended that in the present cases, from perusal of the recommendation of the LAO, sent to the State Government while deciding the objections of the objectors, it is evident that none of the objections raised by any of the objectors has been taken into consideration by the LAO and he has rejected the said objections without assigning any reasons.
It is also contended that as per the provisions of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the LAO is required to send his recommendations to the State Government along with record. However, in the present cases, the record has not been sent to the State Government.
It is further contended that the said recommendation of the LAO is not a recommendation and the 28 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] State Government, without objective application of mind to the objections raised by the interested persons, has decided to issue the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of land in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, argued that the proceedings of the acquisition of the land are nothing but farce as the same is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and as such the same are vitiated and are liable to be set aside.
In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 792, Women's Education Trust & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 99, Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 228 and Lajja Ram & Ors. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 235.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the final award dated 24.09.2013 cannot be said to be complete as the LAO has not determined the amount of compensation in lieu of permanent structures, tress etc. situated on the land sought to be acquired. Referring the provisions of sections 3(a), 11 and 11(A) of the Land 29 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] Acquisition Act, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the final award issued on 24.09.2013 is incomplete as no compensation for construction standing on the land, trees standing on the land and improvements made on the land has been determined. It is further contended that the LAO has wrongly mentioned in the final award that the compensation regarding the standing construction, standing trees and improvements could not be determined as the Khatedars and villagers of the land have stopped the authorities concerned from making a survey of the land, sought to be acquired. It is contended that there was no resistance on the part of the villagers or Khatedars and even if it is assumed that there was some resistance, then also it cannot be said that the report regarding the permanent or temporary constructions, trees etc. was not available with the LAO because with the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a survey regarding the land, sought to be acquired, is ought to be carried out by the authorities.
It is, therefore, argued that as the final award has not determined the compensation in respect of the permanent and temporary construction standing on the land, trees standing on the land and the improvements carried out on the land, the said award is incomplete and, therefore, the 30 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] same is liable to be set aside.
It is further argued that the land sought to be acquired vide impugned notification falls within periphery control belt as per the master plan of Jodhpur City for the year 2002 to 2023 and, therefore, the industrial area cannot be set up on the said land without making necessary changes in the master plan.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court towards the order dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure-16) passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.1554/2004, Gulab Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan and five other connected writ petitions and argued that vide above order, the Division Bench has restrained the State Government from effecting any change in the master plan without prior permission of the Court in the ecological zone and periphery belt area including the green belt. However, the State Government in violation of the restraint order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has continued with the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land falling in periphery control belt for the purpose of establishing industrial area.
It is further argued that the action of the State Government is also in violation of the norms of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, which suggests 31 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] that any industrial area should be located 50 kms. away from the urban limits. It is submitted that the land sought to be acquired vide impugned notification is adjoining to Jodhpur City situated in the South-West side and is hardly 20-25 kms. away from the urban limits and such land cannot be acquired for the purpose of establishing industrial area.
It is further submitted that in the existing industrial area, Boranada, several plots are lying vacant and there are many numbers of units, which are closed and no production or industrial activities are undertaken. It is contended that almost 25% of plots in the existing industrial area are lying vacant and these available/vacant plots would sufficiently meet the requirements of next 10 years and looking to this situation, the acquisition of the agriculture lands of the petitioners through impugned notification is not justified.
It is submitted that if the land sought to be acquired is allowed to be used for developing industrial land, it would be very hazardous and would enhance the pollution level in Jodhpur City, which would be dangerous from health point of view.
In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 588.
32
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] It is contended that the huge chunks of Barren land at Gelawas, Lunawas Kallan, Lunawas Charnan, Bhandu Kallan, Khatawas and other villages is available, which could be utilized by the State Government for setting up of industrial area and looking to this fact, the action of the State Government of acquiring the land in question is not justified as the same may result in uprooting the petitioners and other Khatedars, who are earning their livelihood by cultivating these lands. It is contended that most of the petitioners are agriculturists and if they are deprived from their livelihood, their lives will be ruined and career of their children will be uncertain.
In reply to the preliminary objections raised by the respondent-State and the RIICO, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that till the filing of the writ petitions, the possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken from them and only paper possession of their land was taken by the respondents, that too after filing of these writ petitions. It is also contended that as a matter of fact till date, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay.
In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of 33 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 353, V.K.M. Kattha Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 338 and Chandrakant Adinath Uture vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 150.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.1554/2004, Gulab Kothari & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that the development activity within the periphery control belt shall not be permitted without assessment of environment impact and ensuring the fulfillment of requirement of open spaces/green spaces for the existing population settled in the different zones of the city. The authorities shall be under an obligation to provide for buffer zone to ensure the availability of minimum requirement of green space/open space per city dweller.
It is further argued that in the same judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the change of land use in the periphery control belt can only be done in extraordinary circumstances while maintaining complete transparency and applications made for the change of land 34 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] use as also the orders passed thereon.
It is contended that the State Government without taking into consideration the ill effects of the pollution on the citizens of Jodhpur has decided to acquire the land for industrial purposes without getting the land use changed in the master plan in accordance with law. Hence, the acquisition proceedings are bad and liable to be quashed.
Per contra, Mr P.R.Singh, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr Sanjeet Purohit appearing for RIICO have vehemently argued that except one writ petition being SBCWP No.14641/2013, all the writ petitions have been filed after two years of passing of the final award and, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay only.
It is contended that even SBCWP No.14641/2013, Narayan Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has been filed after passing of the final award and looking to this fact only, the said writ petition and all other writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
In support of the above contention, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.R.Laxmi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 35 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] 445, Urban Improvement Trust vs. Bheru Lal, 2002 (7) SCC 712, Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 695, Sawaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana & ors., (2010) 4 SCC 532, Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., 2011 (5) SCC 394 and Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani & Anr. vs. Div. Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan & Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 794.
It is also argued that all the petitioners of the writ petitions have not filed objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act before the LAO. It is contended that if any interested person has not filed objection under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, he has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the LAO has not decided the objection in compliance of the said provision.
In support of the above contention, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.2320/2007) dated 02.05.2007 and the decision of this Court rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2479/2010, Devi Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. dated 28.05.2013.
It is contended on behalf of the respondents that 36 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] from perusal of the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Officer while sending recommendation to the State Government under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is clear that he has objectively considered the objections raised by the Khatedars and thereafter sent his recommendations to the State Government and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the LAO has not followed the procedure laid down under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
It is further argued by learned counsels for the respondents that the final award dated 24.09.2013 cannot be said to be an incomplete award. It is submitted that even if the LAO has not determined the compensation for permanent or temporary structures, trees and improvements made on the land in question, it cannot be said that the award is incomplete.
In support of the above contentions, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Sharan Pal Singh & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 683, Mohanji & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., JT 1995 (8) SC 599 and Mohd. Nazir & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2012) ILR 1 Punjab and Haryana 993.
Learned counsels for the respondents have further 37 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] argued that even if the land sought to be acquired falls under the periphery control belt in the master plan of Jodhpur City, it can be acquired for the industrial purpose without getting change of land use in the master plan. It is submitted that after acquisition of the land in question for industrial purpose, the beneficiary of the land acquisition, in this case, RIICO can later on move the concerned authority for the change of land use.
In support of the above contention, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Aflatoon vs. LT Governor of Delhi, 1975(4) SCC 285, Bhagat Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 384 and the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Adarsh Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sansthan Maryadit, Bhopal vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2004(1) MPLJ 539 and the decision of Allahabad High Court rendered in Sanjeev Garg & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2014(1) ALJ 372.
Learned counsels for the respondents have further submitted that out of total land holders, several land holders have already received the compensation voluntarily and possession of the land from them has already been taken over. It is further submitted that some of the land holders have opted for 25% of developed land in lieu of compensation 38 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] and that process has also been completed. It is further submitted that when a huge chunk of land has already been taken into possession from the land holders after paying compensation to them either by making payment of money or giving 25% of developed land to them, the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged and on this ground also, the writ petitions of the petitioners are liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsels for the respondents have, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions may kindly be dismissed.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if some of the land holders have received the compensation voluntarily either in terms of money or developed land, the right of the petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings cannot be curtailed.
In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ashwini Kumar Dhingra vs. State of Punjab, (1992) 2 SCC 592.
Heard learned counsels for the rival parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the rival arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsels for the parties and after taking into 39 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] consideration the material produced on record and from the perusal of the original files, wherein LAO has decided the objections of the Khatedars/interested persons, in my view following issues emerged for consideration of this Court:
(i) Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay?
(ii) Whether the right of the petitioners of challenging the acquisition proceedings is affected looking to the fact that several land holders have accepted the compensation in terms of money or land and possession of their land has also been taken by the respondents?
(iii) Whether the LAO has conducted the inquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law?
(iv) Whether the persons, who have not filed objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot question the inquiry conducted by the LAO in the said provision?
(v) Whether the final award passed by the LAO is incomplete?
(vi) Whether the State Government can acquire any land for industrial purposes, falling in the periphery control 40 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] belt in the master plan of Jodhpur City for the year 2002 to 2023, without getting the land use changed in the master plan?
I am also of the view that issue Nos. (i) to (iv) are required to be addressed first, however, the issue Nos. (v) and (vi) will be addressed later, if require so.
Decision on Issue No.(i) It is not in dispute that SBCWP No.14641/2013 has been filed after passing of the final award dated 24.09.2013 and all other writ petitions have been filed in the year 2015 and 2016, much after passing of the award.
As per the information supplied by the respondents, the possession of the land of the petitioners was taken on 09.09.2016, though the petitioners are disputing the fact that possession of their land was taken over from them on 09.09.2016, and, therefore, it can be assumed that the paper possession of the lands in question was taken over by the RIICO on 09.09.2016. However, as per the information supplied by the respondents even the possession of the land of the petitioners of SBCWP Nos.14641/2013 and 2224/2016 has not been taken on account of stay order passed by this Court. Be that as it may, the possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken over by the respondents till the 41 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] filing of the writ petitions.
It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.R.Laxmi & Ors., Urban Improvement Trust vs. Bheru Lal, Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Sawaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana & ors., Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., and Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani & Anr. vs. Div.
Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan & Ors. (supra) has held that if the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings is not filed within the reasonable time, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
It is noticed that in all the above referred cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically noted this fact that after passing of the final award, the possession of the land was taken over from the land holders and after that the acquisition proceedings were challenged. However, in the present case, as observed earlier, the possession of the land was not taken over by the respondents till the filing of the writ petitions and in September, 2016, paper possession was taken in respect of the land of the petitioners, whereas the land of the petitioners of two writ petitions (SBCWP Nos.14641/2013 and 2224/2016) has not been taken over by the respondents till date on account of stay orders. 42
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lajja Ram & Ors. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra) has held as under
"12. The High Court has non-suited the Appellants on yet another ground viz. that the writ petition cannot be entertained after the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the words of the Court:
"...the instant Writ Petition has been filed after making of award by Land Acquisition Collector. On making of award, the land vested in the State, free from all encumbrances and, therefore, the acquisition of the land cannot be challenged at this stage. In this view, we are fortified by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 SCC 695 : 2008 (2) RCR (Civ)
96. It has been categorically and authoritatively laid down in this judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court that writ petition, after making of award by the Land Acquisition Collector, cannot be entertained."
13. In our view, while dismissing the Writ Petition on the aforesaid ground, the High Court has erred in two aspects, firstly, the reasons recorded by the High Court do not reflect the correct position of law in respect of challenge to acquisition proceedings after passing of an award by the LAO and secondly, the High Court has ignored that the possession of acquired lands has not been taken over by the LAO from the Appellants after the passing of the award.
14. Section 16 of the Act bears utmost relevance to the discussion and is extracted hereunder:
"16. Power to take possession- When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest 43 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances."
15. It is settled law that after the award is passed by the LAO/Collector, for the acquired lands to vest in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, it must be succeeded by his taking of possession of the lands under Section 16 of the Act. It is only after taking possession that the acquired lands would vest absolutely in the State Government. (See Jethmull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar (1972) 1 SCC 714; State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi (1996) 6 SCC 445; May George v. Special Tahsildar (2010) 13 SCC 98 and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792). In the instant case, the Writ Petition is filed by the Appellants after the LAO has passed the award, dated 23.07.2008. However, the High Court has failed to notice that Appellants continued to be in possession of the lands and their residential premises constructed on the said lands so acquired and therefore, the possession of the said lands acquired under the notification has not been taken over by the LAO so as to lead to vesting of land in the Respondent No. 1 free from all encumbrances.
16. The High Court, in arriving at its conclusion, has relied upon the decision of this Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan : (2008) 4 SCC 695, wherein this Court has observed: (SCC p. 700, para 19) "19. In the present case also, the writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, the orders of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench are affirmed to the extent of dismissal of the writ petition and the special appeal without going into the merits thereof. This appeal also deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case and is dismissed as such. No costs."
In following the aforementioned decision of this Court, the High Court has erroneously omitted to consider the 44 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] requisite of taking over of possession by the LAO so as to lead to vesting of the land in the State Government which was noticed by this Court while dismissing the petition on ground of delay and laches.
17. It is true that the lands vest in the State Government after an award is passed and the possession of the lands is taken; the aggrieved persons cannot challenge the validity of notifications. This Court, in Market Committee v. Krishan Murari : (1996) 1 SCC 311, has observed that after such vesting of land in the State Government the High Court could not have interfered with the acquisition proceedings so as to grant relief addressing the stage contemplated under Section 5-A. In our considered view, in this case the High Court while recording its reasons has proceeded on incorrect assumptions in respect of possession of acquired lands and erroneously concluded towards the vesting of land in Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the aforesaid reasons recorded by the High Court for dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants cannot be sustained by us and the High Court ought not to have dismissed the Writ Petition on this ground also."
In V.K.M. Kattha Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein was dismissed on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the fact that the writ petition was filed within five weeks of passing of the final award, as such, it cannot be said that there was any delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings.
Here SBCWP No.14641/2013 was filed in December 45 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] 2013 i.e. within three months of the award. Though the other writ petitions were filed with delay but till the filing of those writ petitions, the possession of the lands of petitioners was not taken over by the respondents.
In Chandrakant Adinath Uture vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that passing of the award by itself does not mean that any illegality should not be addressed. In para 15 of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"15. Passing of the award by itself does not mean that any illegality should not be addressed. In the instant case, the writ petitions were filed when the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published, and in any case, it is submitted by the appellants that they have not been dispossessed so far as no compensation also has been paid."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., has held as under:
"8...............It is pertinent to note that even after the Right to Property seized to be a Fundamental Right, taking possession of or acquiring the property of a citizen most certainly tantamounts to deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with the "law", as the said word has specifically been used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Such deprivation can be only by resorting to a procedure prescribed by a statute. The same cannot be done by way of executive fiat or order or administration caprice. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, etc. etc. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. : AIR 1995 SC 142, it has been held as 46 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] follows: - (SCC p. 627 para 48) "48. In other words, Article 300-A only limits the power of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There is no deprivation without due sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation."
9. In other words, Article 300-A only limits the power of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There is no deprivation without due sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram and Ors.: (2007) 10 SCC 448; Amarjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (2010) 10 SCC 43; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.: AIR 2011 SC 1989; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors.: AIR 2012 SC 559 and Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr. : AIR 2012 SC 573).
10..........
11........
12. The State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional 47 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.
13. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party's defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. (Vide: P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. : AIR 1974 SC 2271; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. : AIR 1987 SC 251; and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.: (2009) 1 SCC 768).
14. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have infact emerged, by delay on the part of the Petitioners. (Vide: Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Ors. : AIR 1970 SC 48 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] 769; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. : AIR 1987 SC 1353; Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur and Ors. : AIR 1993 SC 802; Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR 2003 SC 1140; and Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar and Ors. : AIR 2011 SC 2161)
15. In the case of H.D Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 866, this Court condoned a 30 year delay in approaching the court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. In that case, the requisition of premises made by the State was assailed. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and in view of the fact that the possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken over by the respondents till the filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners cannot be non- suited on the ground of delay in filing the writ petitions. Therefore, the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents of dismissing these writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches is rejected.
Decision on Issue No.(ii) The contention of the learned counsels for the respondents to the effect that since some of the land holders have accepted the compensation awarded in the final award and possession of the land belonging to them has also been taken over, the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged, is considered but for rejection only.
49
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Dhingra vs. State of Punjab has held as under:
"One co-owner may challenge the acquisition and ask for compensation and even for enhancement of compensation; other brother may challenge the acquisition proceedings in his own right; merely because one brother accepts compensation, other brother is not estopped from challenging acquisition. Similarly, where one co-owner challenges acquisition, his rights will not be affected merely because other co- owner had accepted acquisition and the compensation."
In view of the above, even if some of the land holders have accepted the compensation voluntarily and possession of their lands have also been taken over, the right of the petitioners of challenging the acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be affected.
Decision on Issue Nos.(iii) & (iv) Since the Issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) are interrelated, therefore, they are being decided together.
Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:
"5A. Hearing of objections.--(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub- section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land in the locality, as the case may be.50
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act."
As per section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, any person interested in the land, which is sought to be acquired and notified under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act can file objection under section 5A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The objector can urge the Land Acquisition Officer that the land is not suitable for acquisition for the purpose it is sought to be acquired or more suitable land is available for the particular project or scheme for which his land is sought to be acquired. So the objector can raise valid objection.
Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act imposes a duty upon the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objections advanced by the objector seriously and objectively and thereafter to make recommendations either in favour of 51 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] the acquisition or against it. However, in both the cases, he has to give reasons in support of the acquisition and for rejecting the objections of the objectors. Even if he decides against acquisition, he has to give reasons for that also. The recommendations sent by the LAO to the State Government should demonstrate objective application of mind to the objections filed by the land holders and to the entire record of the land. The LAO is required to send his recommendations with record to the State Government and the State Government after taking into consideration the necessity and justification for acquisition of the land sought to be acquired can give its approval for issuance of notification under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) has held as under:
"39. In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification 52 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilized for execution of the particular project or scheme.
40. Though, it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons."
Again in Women's Education Trust & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
5. The principles which can be culled out from the above-
noted judgments are as under:
5.1. The rule of audi alteram partem engrained in the scheme of Section 5A of the Act ensures that before depriving any person of his land by compulsory acquisition, an effective opportunity must be given to him to contest the decision taken by the State Government /competent authority to acquire the particular parcel of land.
5.2. Any person interested in the land, which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, can file objections under Section 5A(1) and show that the purpose specified in the notification is really not a public purpose or that in the guise of acquiring the land for a public purpose the appropriate Government wants to confer benefit upon 53 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] private persons or that the decision of the appropriate Government is arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides.
5.3. In response to the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 5A(2) of the Act, the objector can make all possible endeavours to convince the Land Acquisition Collector that the acquisition is not for a public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1); that his land is not suitable for the particular purpose; that other more suitable parcels of land are available, which can be utilized for execution of the particular project or scheme.
5.4. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons.
5.5. The Land Acquisition Collector is required to submit his report and the recommendations to the State Government along with the record of proceedings to enable the latter to take final call on the desirability, propriety and justification for the acquisition of the particular parcel(s) of land.
5.6. The declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act can be issued only if the appropriate Government, on an objective application of mind to the objections filed by the interested persons including the landowners and the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, is satisfied that the land is needed for the particular purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.
6. It is unfortunate that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, the executive authorities entrusted with the task of acquiring private land for any specified public purposes have time and again exhibited total lack of 54 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] seriousness in the performance of their duties under the statute. Often they do not comply with the mandate of Section 5A of the Act, which is sine qua non for making a valid declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act.This batch of appeals is illustrative of the malady that has afflicted the State authorities who are keen to acquire private lands in the name of planned development of various urban areas, but do not bother to comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice."
In Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Surpeme Court has held as under:
"9. We also agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the report of the Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to total non-application of mind by the concerned officer to large number of substantive objections raised by the Appellants Under Section 5A(1). He mechanically rejected the objections and senior officers of the Chandigarh Administration accepted the report of the Land Acquisition Officer despite the fact that the same had been prepared in violation of Section 5A(2)."
In Lajja Ram & Ors. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"19. Before we advert to the aforesaid question, it is appropriate that we briefly notice Section 5-A of the Act which reads as under:
"5A. Hearing of objections- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, Sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, 55 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, Sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act."
Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A envisages the rule of audi alteram partem and makes it sine qua non to the acquisition proceedings under the Act. It mandates the LAO to first provide an opportunity of hearing to the objector(s) in respect of their objections to the acquisition of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. The LAO or the Collector may also conduct a further enquiry in this regard, if he deems it necessary, and thereafter decide upon the objections raised by such objector(s) and submit his recommendations to the State Government in the form of a report, on the basis of which the State Government is to formulate its opinion in respect of acquisition of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue appropriate notification under Section 6 of the Act. The purpose is to afford an opportunity of making representation to the aggrieved person before any order, which may adversely affect his interest in any immovable property, may be passed by the LAO and subsequent 56 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] notification be issued by the State Government.
20.The said purpose has been noticed by this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh : (1980) 2 SCC 471, wherein this Court has observed as under:
"16... it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons."
21. Further, this Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana: (2012) 1 SCC 792, has reflected upon the purpose of inclusion of principles of natural justice in the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A of the Act and their strict compliance by the LAO in the following words:
"39...it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme.
40. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not 57 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons."
22. This Court in Munshi Singh v. Union of India : (1973) 2 SCC 337, has highlighted the importance of the rule of audi alteram partem embodied in Section 5-A of the Act in the following words:
"7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. We may refer to the observation of this Court in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. : AIR 1964 SC 1217 that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if by a side wind. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections is then final. The declaration under Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections."
23. This Court in Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India:
(2013) 1 SCC 403, while analyzing the legality of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act in the light of principles of natural justice as envisaged in the mandatory provisions of the Act under Sections 5-A and 6, has observed that the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 5-A(20 must not be denuded to mere 58 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] formality and the LAO/Collector must take into consideration the objections raised by the objectors and record reasons in his report as to why or why not the lands requires to be acquired for public purpose. This Court has emphasized that it is the reasons recorded by the LAO/Collector, after providing appropriate hearing to the objectors that contribute to the decision reached by the State authorities in issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: (SCC pp. 457- 58, para 84) "84. What needs to be emphasised is that hearing required to be given under Section 5-A(2) to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed objections under Section 5-A(1) must be effective and not an empty formality. The Collector who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may think necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections and submit the same to the appropriate Government along with the record of proceedings held by him for the latter's decision. The appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, if any, made under Section 5-A(2) and then record its satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public purpose. This exercise culminates into making a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the Government or some other officer duly authorized to certify its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a declaration under Section 6(1). Any violation of the substantive right of the landowners and/or other interested persons to file objections or denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s) vitiates the recommendations made by the Collector and the decision taken by the appropriate Government on such recommendations. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections filed 59 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] under Section 5-A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given under Section 5-A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector will denude the decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. To put it differently, the satisfaction recorded by the appropriate Government that the particular land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration made under Section 6(1) will be devoid of legal sanctity if statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not adhered to by the authorities concerned or there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The cases before us are illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of Sections 5-A(2) and 6(1)...."
25. In our considered opinion, before passing the said order, opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the land owners who have immovable property rights in the lands acquired. Since that has not been done, the action of the Respondent-authorities is contrary to the statutory provisions and also in violation of the principles of natural justice."
The sum and substance of the above referred decisions is that section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act mandates that every objector should be provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the objections filed by him or her shall be decided by the LAO seriously and objectively by giving reasons even in brief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the procedure laid down under section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has not been followed and effective opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the objectors, then in such cases the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.
60
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] In the light of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, I propose to examine the record pertaining to the decision taken by the LAO on the objections filed by the various Khatedars. The State Government has produced as many as 79 files relating to the different Khatedars, wherein the LAO has decided the objections to the State Government in favour of acquisition, however, after carefully scrutinizing those files, I find that the LAO has failed to consider the objections raised by the various Khatedars seriously and objectively and no reason whatsoever has been given by him for rejecting the objections filed by the land holders. In almost all the files, he has decided the objections simply by saying that the objections filed by the objectors and their replies filed by the applicants have been considered, the RIICO is in requirement of the land for industrial development, the State Government is having jurisdiction to withdraw the notification, therefore, the objections filed by the objectors are liable to be rejected and the objectors are entitled for compensation as per the provisions of law. Hence, the objections are not maintainable. The LAO has adopted a method of noting the objections filed by the objectors in brief and thereafter to reject the same. The decision rendered by the LAO in one of the file i.e. File No.05/2010 is reproduced hereunder:
61
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] "18-07-2011 jhdks tks/kiqj dks vks|ksfxd {ks= gsrq ftyk tks/kiqj rglhy yw.kh ds xzke cksjkukMk] lkykokl o ghj[ksM+k dh futh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe dks dEiuh dks [kpsZ ij Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e 1894 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la- 1 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vkokIr djus gsrq jkT; ljdkj dks fuosnu fd;k x;kA ftldk jktLFkku ljdkj m|ksx xqi¼1½foHkkx ds Øekad %4%¼51½m|ksx@1@10 t;iqj fnukad 12-08-10 dh vf/klwpuk dks LFkkuh; v[kckj jktLFkku if=dk 2-10-10 o tyrsnhi 2-10-10 esa foKfIr tkjh dh xbZ rFkk Hkwfe vkokfIr laca/kh vf/klwpuk dh pLikuxh dh izfr lacaf/kr iVokj ?kjksa] iapk;r Hkou] rglhy dk;kZy; yw.kh uksfVl cksMZ ,oa xzke ds vke pksgVk o dk;kZy; vks|ksfxd {ksf=; izca/kd fjdks cksjkukMk ij dh xbZA rFkk jktLFkku jkti= fo'ks"kkad 16-08-10 t;iqj esa Hkh izdk'ku djok;k x;kA bl Hkwfe dh vkokfIr ds lEcU/k esa [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj }kjk vkifÙk izkIr djus dh fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa vkifÙk is'k dh ftls ntZ jftLVj djds [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj dks fnukad 28-4-2011 dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ gsrq uksfVl tkjh djrs gq, fnukad 20-5-2011 dks O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gksdj viuk i{k izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;kA mDr uksfVl fu;ekuqlkj rkehyh ds i'pkr izkIr gqvk ftls 'kkfey fely fd;k x;kA vkifÙkdrkZ us viuh vkifÙk esa crk;k fd %&
1. cksjkukMk vkS|ksfxd {ks= ds r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ pj.k esa vkt Hkh jhdks ds ikl Ik;kZIr Hkwfe miyC/k gSA vr% vkokfIr dh vko';drk ugha gS
2. jhdks dh vkokfIr dk mÌs'; tufgr esa u gksdj ykHk dekuk ,oa cM+s HkwekfQ;ksa dks m|ksxksa ds uke ij lLrh nj ij Hkwfe foØ; djuk gSA vr% vkokfIr fof/kd :i ls iks"k.kh; ugha gSA 62 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
3. tks/kiqj esa vkS|ksfdx foLrkj U;k;ksfpr ugha gS rFkk ekLVj Iyku esa vkokIrk/khu Hkwfe vkS|ksfxd ugha gksus ls Hkh vkokfIr mfpr ugha gSA
4. Hkwfe dh Mh,ylh nj cktkj nj ls cgqr de gSA vr% dk'rdkjksa dks 5 yk[k :i;s izfr ch?kk dh nj ls eqvkotk fnyk;k tkosA
5. vf/klwpuk fnukad 12-08-2010 foMªks dh tkosA izkFkhZ jhdks }kjk vizkFkhZ ¼vkifÙkdrkZ½ dh vkifÙk;ksa dks [kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;k gS D;ksafd jhdks dks vkS|ksfxd fodkl gsrq Hkwfe dh vko';drk gSA lkFk gh lkFk eqvkotk dk fu/kkZj.k Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr gh fn;k tkuk fof/kd :i ls mfpr gSA vr% vkifÙkdrkZ dh vkifÙk fujLr fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ ¼vkifÙkdrkZ½ dh vkifÙk;ksa ,oa tokc ij fopkj fd;k x;kA jhdks dks vkS|ksfxd fodkl gsrq Hkwfe dh vko';drk gSA vr% vkokfIr foMªk djus dh 'kfDr flQZ jkT; ljdkj esa fufgr gSA vr% vkokfIr foMªk djus dh vkifÙkdrkZ dh vkifÙk fujLr dh tkrh gSA vkifÙkdrkZ dks fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj gh eqvkotk Lohd`r fd;k tkuk lEHko gks ldsxkA vr% vkifÙk iks"k.kh; ugha gS rFkk vLohdkj djus ;ksX; gSA Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ dh /kkjk 5, ¼2½ ds rgr fu.kZ; gsrq iszf"kr gSA ,l Mh @& ¼vuoj vyh [kku½ Hkwfe vkokfIr vf/kdkjh ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh yw.kh eq- tks/kiqj"
In almost all the files, the LAO has rejected the objections by giving similar findings except one or two lines, more or less, though many of the objectors have filed their 63 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] objections while contending that huge chunk of land/plots in the industrial area, Boranara is lying vacant, which can be allotted for industrial purposes, the land falls in periphery control belt and cannot be used for industrial purpose without making changes in master plan of Jodhpur City, with the set up of industrial area the ecological balance of the area will be disturbed and pollution will rise upto alarming level, land is not suitable for industrial purpose, the land holders will be deprived of their agriculture land, barani land is available in the adjoining village, where industrial area can be set up etc. etc. However, none of the objections has been considered by the LAO and no reasons whatsoever have been given for rejecting those objections.
Interestingly, in some of the cases, even the notices for appearance to the concerned land holders for personal hearing was given for 19.05.2011, however, the order-sheet dated 18.05.2011 says that the Khatedars/objectors were heard on 18.05.2011 (e.g. File Nos. 3/2010, 4/2010, 16/2010, 17/2010, 20/2010, 21/2010, 23/2010, 31/2010, 32/2010, 34/2010, 55/2010, 57/2010, 64/2010). Similarly in one of the files i.e. File No.25/2010, notices for appearance to the concerned land holders for personal hearing was given for 20.05.2011, however, in the final order, it is observed that the concerned land holders 64 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] were heard on 19.05.2011.
Even in some of the cases, the notices for appearance of land holders for personal hearing were not served and this fact has been noted in the order-sheet by the LAO, however, in the final order dated 18.07.2011, he has mentioned that notices are served upon the Khatedars as per Rules (e.g. File No.47/2010). In File Nos.41/2010, 48/2010, 51/2010, 56/2010, 59/2010, 63/2010, 66/2010, 67/2010/, 71/2010, 73/2010, 75/2010, 76/2010, 80/2010, 83/2010, 84/2010, 86/2010, 88/2010 and 90/2010, notices upon the concerned land holders were admittedly not served as per the process server report, however, in the order-sheets, it is mentioned that land holders have been heard.
In File Nos. 35/2010, 37/2010, 39/2010, 41/2010 and 42/2010, no proof of service of notice for personal hearing under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is available on record, however, the cases were heard without issuing fresh notices to the concerned land holders.
Many other illegalities have been found in the files, whereby the LAO has decided the objections of Khatedars and his recommendation to the State Government. I have no hesitation in holding that the LAO has not decided the objections filed by the Khatedars seriously and in objective manner and has not given any decision while rejecting the 65 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] objections filed by the objectors with reasons.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, which have been referred hereinabove has held that section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. Sub-section (2) of section 5-A makes it obligatory on the Land Acquisition Officer to give an objector an opportunity of being heard and the law mandates that after hearing all the objectors and making further inquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has to send its recommendations to the appropriate Government on the objections.
As observed earlier, in the present cases, objections filed by the various objectors under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act have not been even considered by the LAO and he has simply noted some of the objections in brief and without there being any effective consideration and without giving any decision on the said objection has rejected the same. It seems that LAO has completed the formalities of rejecting the objections of the various objectors and referred the matter to the State Government without making any 66 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] decision on the said objections. Such a procedure adopted by the LAO cannot be approved.
The objections raised by some of the Khatedars to the effect that the land, which falls within the periphery control belt, cannot be used for industrial development without getting changed the land use and regarding environment and pollution, are of significant nature in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Gulab Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) dated 12.01.2017, wherein the following directions, out of the various directions were issued:
"(i) The Development Authorities and the State Government shall ensure that Master Development Plan of a city or town prepared under the relevant statutes is a comprehensive and self explanatory document providing for preservation, conservation and development of eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area, peripheral control belt, natural scenery, city forest, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping as also allocation of land for different uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, cultural complexes, tourist complexes, open spaces, garden, recreation centres, amusement parks, zoological gardens, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts etc.
(ii) Simultaneously with the preparation of Master Development Plan or immediately thereafter as contemplated by Section 4 of the UIT Act and Section 22 of the Act No.25 of 1982 and other relevant statutes, the authority concerned shall proceed with the preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each zone clearly specifying the location and extent of the land 67 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] uses proposed in the zone for such thing as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, parks, industry, business, markets, schools, public and private open spaces etc.
(iii) The sanctity of Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned shall be maintained and all development schemes of the various zones and the development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative period thereof, shall conform to the land uses as specified under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be.
(iv) Once the Master Development Plan is brought into being, vigilant implementation thereof shall be the rule and any deviation therefrom an exception and therefore, the power vested with the authority or the State Government for modification thereof during its operative period shall be exercised sparingly in larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to sub-serve interest of an individual.
(v)............
(vi) Even the area which is shown in the various Master Development Plans as Green Zone/Green Area marked as G-2 abutting G-1 developed as buffer to promote a continuum to G-1 shall not be permitted to be used for the activities other than those specified, unless and until, the State Government after objective consideration arrives at a categorical conclusion that the public interest involved in diversion of the land for other use outweighs the object sought to be achieved in permitting its restrictive use specified. In any case, change of the land use of the Green Zone/Green Area (G2) shall be as an exception to serve the larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to subserve the interest of an individual. 68
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS]
(vii)..............
(viii) No isolated change in the land use of the land falling within the peripheral control belt shall be permitted without inclusion thereof in accordance with the procedure laid down, in the land use plan of urbanisable area shown in the Master Development Plan, the development wherein has to be further regulated by Zonal Development Plans notified.
(ix) Further, the development activity within the peripheral control belt for the purposes aforesaid, shall not be permitted without assessment of environment impact and ensuring the fulfillment of requirement of the open spaces/green spaces for the existing population settled in the different zones of the city. The authorities shall be under an obligation to provide for buffer zone to ensure the availability of minimum requirement of green space/open space per city dweller.
(x) The State Government while permitting the change of the land use in the peripheral control belt or the Green Zone (G-2)/Green Area(G-2) shall maintain complete transparency, the applications made for the change of land use as also the orders passed thereon, shall be uploaded on the website of Department of Urban Development & Housing so also on the website of the concerned local authority. The order permitting the change of land use shall be an speaking order reflecting the fulfillment of the parameters laid down as aforesaid.
(xi) The open spaces, green spaces, common facilities, playgrounds, gardens, parks, recreational areas specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan shall be protected during the operative period of the Plans and even thereafter, while undertaking revision thereof or preparing a new Plan and the same shall not be diverted to the use other than those specified.
(xii) The local authorities and the State Government are 69 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, for restoration of the user of the open spaces, green spaces, common facilities, playgrounds, gardens, parks, recreational areas specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan or the Layout Plan of the colonies developed by the local authorities or the private colonisers in all the six major cities and other towns of the State, which stand diverted to other unauthorised use.
(xiii) The different land uses as specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be, form basic character of the Plan and the land use as specified shall not be permitted to be changed without alteration/modification of the Plan after following the procedure laid down under the relevant statute. The change of the land use to be permitted by way of modification of the Plans must be in furtherance of the planned development of the city or town in the larger public interest and not to sub-serve the interest of an individual."
It is true that industrial development is also necessary for the development of the nation but the same cannot be allowed at the cost of the health of the public at large, particularly in view of the rising level of pollution in the city of Jodhpur.
Taking into overall facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents are vitiated as the inquiry conducted by the LAO under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was farce and mere empty formality and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be 70 [CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] quashed.
The contention of the learned counsels for the respondents that all the petitioners have not filed objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and they have urged that all the petitioners have filed their objections before the LAO.
It is noticed that the respondent-State has filed reply only in SBCWP No.14641/2013, whereas the RIICO has filed its reply in all the writ petitions, however, no specific objection is raised by the respondents that the petitioner/petitioners in those writ petitions have not filed any objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act before the LAO. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsels for the respondents to the effect that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had not filed their objections before the LAO, is bereft of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In view of above discussions, the issue Nos. (v) and
(vi) are not required to be addressed.
Resultantly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notification dated 12.08.2010 and the final award dated 24.09.2013 qua the petitioners are set aside. 71
[CW 14641/2013 AND 32 CONNECTED MATTERS] It is made clear that the final award in respect of the other land holders, who have accepted the compensation either in terms of money or developed land and have handed over the possession of their lands to the respondents voluntarily and have not challenged the acquisition proceedings by way of writ petition before this Court till date, shall stand as it is and shall not be disturbed. The respondents, if desire so, may proceed for acquisition of the land of the petitioners in accordance with the prevailing law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Stay petitions stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J. m.asif/PS