Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pooran Mal & Ors vs State (Riico) & Ors on 31 May, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
<<>>
:: O R D E R ::
S/173
(1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4085/2011.
Pooran Mal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S/174
(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4086/2011.
Mohan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S/175
(3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4197/2011.
Shambhu Lal & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
S/176
(4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4313/2011.
Gamer Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
S/177
(5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4405/2011.
Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
S/178
(6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4616/2011.
Manohar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
....
Date of Order ::::: 31st May 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sunil Mehta ]
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari ]
Mr. Sanjay Mathur ]
Mr. Manoj Pareek ]
Mr. Shanker Lal Sukhwal ], for the petitioners.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Senior Advocate & AAG with
Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Dr. P.S. Bhati ]
Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ]
Mr. Vinay Kothari ]
M. Sanjeet Purohit ], for the respondents.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
These six writ petitions involving similar facts and identical issues, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.
2The petitioners herein, said to be the agriculturists and having different pieces of agricultural land at revenue villages Muralia, Mangrol, Bansa and Peerkhera in Nimbahera tehsil of Chittorgarh district, have filed these writ petitions questioning the proceedings for acquisition of their land under the notifications dated 29.10.2010 and 01.04.2011, issued respectively under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'/'the Act of 1894'). The main plank of the contentions of the petitioners is that though this acquisition is sought to be made in the name of the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited 'RIICO') but the acquisition is directly meant for a company, Wonder Cement Limited ('WCL'); and merely with the use of the name of RIICO, the requirements of Part-VII of the Act of 1894 could not have been avoided. According to the petitioners, the entire proceedings for acquisition remain illegal and unauthorised for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Part-VII of the Act of 1894 when the acquisition is for a company and not for any public purpose. Another part of the principal submissions of the petitioners is that though very specific and elaborate objections were filed under Section 5-A of the Act but the Land Acquisition Officer omitted to deal with the relevant major aspects; and the Government also proceeded to issue the notification under Section 6 of the Act without application of mind and rather in a colourable exercise of the powers under the Act of 1894.
The contesting respondents have put appearance in some of these matters; and reply on behalf of WCL and RIICO 3 have been filed in two of these petitions. During the course of submissions and as required by the Court, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced for perusal photostat of the bunch of papers said to be that of the record of the State Government relating to this acquisition and so also the records of the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbahera).
The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and record perused.
For a brief reference to the background aspects and the stand of the respective parties, the averments as taken in CWP No. 4085/2011 and the replies thereto may be taken note of as follows:
According to the petitioners, they are small farmers having small patches of agriculture land at village Mangrol Tehsil Nimbahera District Chittorgarh and agriculture is their only source of livelihood. The petitioners have averred that pursuant to the proposal made by WCL, a letter of intent dated 11.05.2007 was granted in its favour for the purpose of mining with respect to the mining area comprised in M.L. No.22/2007; and a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27.11.2007 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.06.2008 seeking acquisition of land for the purpose of the company WCL. Such proceedings were challenged in the writ petitions before this Court which, according to the petitioners, were pending. However, it has been pointed out during the course of arguments that some of those petitions have already been dismissed 4 The petitioners have further averred that in order to come out from the legal mandatory provisions, the respondent WCL alongwith RIICO and the State started further proceedings in colourable exercise of the powers whereby a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published in the Gazette on 01.11.2010 (Annex.2) stating, inter alia, that the respondent Company was going to establish a cement plant at Tehsil Nimbahera and, therefore, it required a Railway Line from Gambhiri Road Railway Station to the Cement Plant;
and for the purpose of this Railway Line, the land of villages Mangrol, Murliya, Bansa and Peer Kheda were required and the Company at its own cost wanted to acquire the land through RIICO; and an agreement in that regard had been executed between RIICO and the Company. The petitioners have further averred that the notices were issued by the respondent No.3, the Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 5-A of the Act of the 1894 in response whereof they did file their objections (Annex.3) stating, inter alia, that the respondent WCL, for earning its private income, intentionally started the proceedings through RIICO which was illegal because there was no industrial plan of RIICO at the site; that the respondents have not negotiated directly with the petitioners and there was no public purpose for acquiring the land; that the farmers were not ready to give up their fertile land; that the propostion for acquisition through RIICO was nothing but fraud on the power conferred on the Government; and that there was available a shorter way for the railway track but just in order to grab more land, the respondents have 5 chosen the petitioners' land with ulterior motives.
The petitioners allege that the respondent No.3, in his communication dated 09.02.2011 (Annex.4), without discussing properly and legally the objections raised by them, sent his recommendations; and the respondent No.1, without looking into the matter and in colourable exercise of the powers, just in order to extend benefit to the respondent Company, issued the notification under Section 6 of the Act on 01.04.2011 (Annex.5) while mentioning therein, though, that the land was being acquired at the expenses of the Company. According to the petitioners, the land has not been acquired for public purpose and the Government has not contributed a single penny. The petitioners have further averred that after the said notification under Section 6 of the Act, the notices under Section 9 of the Act have been issued on 06.04.2011 (Annex.6) but the award has not been passed until presentation of the writ petition.
The petitioners have alleged that there had been several shortcomings in the entire process that have not been considered by the State Government and therefore, the "satisfaction" arrived at by the State Government for issuing declaration by notification under Section 6 of the Act is farce; and no such declaration could have been issued by the State Government.
It is submitted that there is nothing in the provisions contained in the Act which may suggest that the Government is bound by an agreement to provide land to the Company; that land can only be acquired for a private company for the 6 purpose mentioned under Section 40 (1) (a) of the Act; that there is nothing on record of the Land Acquisition Officer to show adjudication and decision on the question whether the Company made best endeavour to find out land in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition and about the reasonable efforts to get the land by negotiations with petitioners on payment of reasonable price. The petitioners further contend that there has not been any decision on the points as to whether the land proposed to be acquired was suitable for the railway track and no alternative suitable land could be found; and as to whether the proposed one was not excessive than required. The petitioners have further alleged the shortcomings that various requirements of the Rules of 1963 have not been complied with. Thus stating their grievance against the proceedings for acquisition, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
The respondent No. 4 Company, Wonder Cement Limited, has filed a reply contesting the writ petition with the submissions, inter alia, that only after the availability of Cement Grade Limestone in the subject area was established that the State Government took a decision to invite applications for grant of letter of intent for utilizing the mineral in manufacture of cement. The company would assert that it is a case of captive mining Limestone for the Cement Plant which is not only in the interest of mineral development but is also aimed at promotion of industrialisation and economic development of the area. Thus, according to the answering respondent, the establishment of a mineral-based industry i.e. 7 the Cement Plant with utilization of Cement Grade Limestone from the adjoining Mining area is a public purpose and is sought to be achieved by the State Government through the company.
The answering respondent has further alleged that it was decided, inter alia, in the meeting of the State Cabinet held on 12.06.2006 that in the projects involving both production and mining, the Industries Department of the State Government would be the Nodal Agency for the action regarding acquisition of land; and that the proceedings for land acquisition would be undertaken either in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act or the land would be acquired through RIICO on the basis of MOU between RIICO and the concerned Company. It is alleged that the Company approached the Principal Secretary, Industries Department & Chairman, RIICO for acquisition of land for Railway Line to Gambhiri Road Railway Station keeping in view the aforesaid Cabinet decision and for the Project undertaken by the Company being the one related to the public purpose and for promotion of industrialization in the State. It is further stated that the Ministry of Railways has granted Rail Transport Clearance to the Company under the communication dated 22.05.2008 subject to certain conditions; and even the permission for Railway Crossing at KM 203/485 on NH-79 for the Railway siding of the Company has been approved 'in- principle' by the Ministry of Surface Transport and Highways.
The answering respondent further submits that for the purpose of working of the Cement Plant, tonnes of Coal/Pet 8 Coke and Gypsum has to be brought from Bilaspur and Jamnagar and that apart, Cement/Clinker is to be dispatched to various destinations in the Country and for this purpose, the establishment of Rail Link between the Cement Plant and Gambhiri Road Railway Station remains absolutely essential. It is submitted that the acquisition of land by the State Government for RIICO for the purpose of Rail Line and Railway Siding of the Company is for public purpose. It is further submitted that for the purpose of acquisition of land for RIICO, which is a Government Company, the provisions of Part-VII of the Act are not required to be followed. It is submitted that RIICO has been set up by the State Government for promotion of industrial development and investment in the State of Rajasthan and the acquisition of land for establishment of rail-link between the Cement Plant being set up by the Company and Gambhiri Road Railway Station is ex-facie a case of promotion of industrialisation in order to secure economic development of the area which is definitely a public purpose.
It is contended that the subject acquisition of land has been undertaken by the State Government for fulfilment of its policies and the Government had demonstrated its keenness to help the successful implementation of the Project in terms of MOU entered with the Company on 30.11.2007. The answering respondent has taken further elaborate averments regarding the subsidy and various incentives/exemptions given to it by the State Government; and it is contended that the State Government has also contributed to the Project by grant 9 of such subsidies and exemptions and the agency of RIICO is extending its helping hand to meet the policy objectives of the State Government for establishing of the Cement Plant in public interest and for public purpose. It has also been stated that the State Government had allotted Government land admeasuring 13 bighas 3 biswas to the Company for establishment of Railway Line under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959; and upon deposit of Rs.16,12,466/- by the Company towards the cost of land in pursuance of allotment order dated 29.03.2011, the lease deed for the allotted land came to be executed on 29.04.2011 between the Company and Government of the State which enjoins upon the Company to set up Railway Line over the land leased to it within a period of two years; and the possession of the allotted Government land has been delivered to the Company by the State Government on 27.04.2011 (Annexure-C/5 and Annexure-C/6).
It is contended that the writ petition is founded on the facts and grounds which are untenable in law; that RIICO is a Corporation owned and controlled by the State within the meaning of Clause (cc) of Section 3 of the Act and making the provision of land for the Corporation owned and controlled by the State is included in the expression 'Public Purpose' as defined in Clause (f) of Section 3 ibid; that for the purpose of acquisition of land for RIICO, the procedure prescribed in Part- VII is not required to be followed; that the agency of RIICO has been employed in order to ensure that the implementation of the Project which has already been delayed is not hampered 10 any further. It is submitted that setting up of Railway Line is an integral part of the Project which is being established by the Company in terms of MOU with the State Government. It has, therefore, been prayed that writ petition be ordered to be dismissed.
The respondent No.5, RIICO, has filed a separate reply and, while referring to the notification dated 27.12.2006 inviting applications for grant of mining lease for establishment of large cement plant from the interested persons, it is submitted that in pursuance to the said notification, the respondent No.4 applied for grant of mining lease whereupon a Letter of Intent was issued in its favour with certain conditions on 11.05.2007; and after fulfilling of the said conditions, the respondent No. 4 was allotted a mining lease and consequently, the lease deed was executed on 08.09.2008.
The respondent No. 5 has also referred to the decision taken in the State Cabinet meeting dated 12.06.2006 for acquisition of land to be allotted for industrial purposes and to the effect that where the industrial project includes the excavation of minerals as well as consumption of the same for production, the acquisition of land for the said purpose will be undertaken through the Department of Industry under Part-VII of the Act of 1894 or through RIICO while executing a MOU between the RIICO and the concerned industrial establishment. A copy of the said cabinet decision dated 12.06.2006 has been placed on record as Annexure R5/1.
It is further submitted that for the development and industrialization of the State of Rajasthan, a campaign was 11 also launched by the State Government to attract the industrialists to make larger investments in industries in the State and on the basis of the incentives given to the Investors, a MOU was executed between the State of Rajasthan and respondent No. 4 on the occasion of 'Resurgent Rajasthan'-Partnership summit at Jaipur on 30.11.2007 (Annexure R5/2). It is submitted that pursuant to the said MOU, earlier a mining lease was granted to the respondent no. 4 and later, the acquisition proceedings were undertaken by the Department of Industry for establishment of cement plant and approach roads. It is submitted that in pursuance of the commitment made by the State Government under the said MOU, various facilities, relaxations, subsidies have been granted by the State Government and all such actions have been undertaken by the State Government for promotion of the industrial activities in the State as well as for infrastructural development. The respondent No. 5 would further submit that the respondent no. 4 Company has proposed to establish a huge cement plant in the area at the estimated cost of around Rs. 1000 crores. According to the respondent No. 5, the said plant is also going to generate huge employment opportunity in the area.
It is submitted that for such a huge cement plant, the requirement of a Railway Line for transportation purpose remains indispensable and in such circumstances, the respondent no. 4 Company applied for the sanction of a railway track connecting the plant to the nearest Railway Station Gambhiri Road and the railway transport cleance has 12 already been granted by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India under its communication dated 22.05.2008.
In regard to the acquisition in question, it is submitted that in view of the said Cabinet decision, the respondent no. 4 Company submitted a proposal dated 16.08.2010 to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry and requested for acquisition of land for 7 km. long Railway Line for the Company in accord with the decision taken by the Cabinet on 12.06.2006; and that in pursuance of the said proposal dated 16.08.2010, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Industries (Group-1) directed the Managing Director, RIICO to execute a MOU for acquisition of land for Railway Line for the Company. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid proposal and communication, RIICO entered into an MOU dated 14.10.2010 with WCL (Annex.5/5). It is submitted that the basic purpose of RIICO is promotion of industry and development of industrial area and since WCL is going to establish a cement plant for which laying of railway track was essential, therefore, in order to promote such industry, the answering-respondent RIICO will acquire the land and allot the same to WCL under Rajasthan Industrial Area Allotment Rules, 1959 and RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979.
It is submitted that in pursuance of the said MOU, the acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the Department of Industry by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 01.11.2010 (Annex-2); and thereafter, the objections under Section 5-A were decided by the LAO and later on, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 has 13 been issued on 01.04.2011 (Annex-5). It is submitted that the draft award has already been prepared and the same has been approved by the State Government.
It is also submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in undertaking the present process of acquisition; that the entire proceedings have been undertaken in compliance of the conscious decision taken at the cabinet level; that the acquisition of land for the purpose of Railway Line for such the cement plant is a public purpose, being a part of promotion for industry; and RIICO is justified to apply for acquisition of land and in turn, to allot the same to the respondent no. 4 Company for laying down the Railway Line. It is submitted that the land acquisition proceedings in the present case have been undertaken under Part-II of the Act of 1894 and therefore, all the grounds regarding the non- compliance of requirements of Part-VII of the Act of 1894 are not tenable in the eye of law; and the petitioners have failed to substantiate the allegations of malafide exercise of powers and violation of constitutional rights. It is reiterated that RIICO is a Government Company referred to in Clause (cc) of Section 3 of the Act and for the purpose of acquisition of land for RIICO, the procedure prescribed in Part-VII is not required to be followed; and the State Government has consistently adopted the procedure prescribed in Part-II and not in Part-VII for acquisition of land for RIICO and other Government owned or controlled Corporations or Companies. It is submitted that the agency of RIICO has been employed in order to ensure that the implementation of the project which has already been 14 delayed considerably, is not hampered any further. It is submitted that setting up of Railway Line is an integral part of the Project which is being established by the WCL in terms of MOU with the State Government. According to RIICO, in the aforesaid circumstances, the challenge made by the petitioners to the acquisition proceedings which have already reached the final stage remains unfounded and unjustified.
As noticed, the main issue in this matter arising from the contentions of the petitioners is that the acquisition is directly and only meant for the company WCL and hence, the requirements of Part-VII of the Act of 1894 could not have been avoided. It has been contended strenuously on behalf of the petitioners that the name of RIICO in this acquisition proceeding is only a ploy to overcome the requirements of Part-VII of the Act of 1894 and else, the RIICO has neither any scheme nor any plan at the area in question nor has any concern with the acquisition for railway track that would be used by the WCL only. It is also submitted that neither RIICO nor Government have contributed a single penny towards this acquisition and when the acquisition is wholly at the expense of the company WCL, it cannot be said to be a public purpose and the requirements of Part-VII of the Act of 1894 cannot be avoided. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.:
(2008) 1 SCC 728.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the land is being acquired through RIICO pursuant to the cabinet 15 decision dated 12.06.2006 and so also the MOUs as executed between the company WCL and the Government and between the company WCL and RIICO. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the acquisition is being made through RIICO in larger public interest of industrial development and when specific direct and indirect contributions have been made on behalf of the State and the RIICO in regard to the entire project, it cannot be said that there is no contribution on the part of the State. It is submitted that the allotment of a part of this land towards this very Railway Line by the Government and the compensation payment being made through RIICO, show it clearly that there are contributions towards acquisition from the Government and the RIICO. It is submitted that when the acquisition is for RIICO, it remains trite that it being a Government Company, Part-VII of the Act of 1894 is not applicable. The learned counsel for the respondents have referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Nema & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.: (2003) 10 SCC 626 and of this Court in Hanuman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (2) WLC (Raj.)
680. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and is not persuaded to quash these acquisition proceedings as illegal or unauthorised.
The contents of the notifications as issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act of 1894 being relevant are 16 reproduced hereunder for ready reference. In the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, it has been stated, inter alia, as under:-
"सख प. 4 (72) उद ग / 1 / 2010: त: कमपन ज एक , 1956 क अनतगत पज कत कमपन मसस वण र स मण ल!. मकर न -र , मदनगज-ककशनगढ, जज! अजमर एव म'ख ! 17, ओल फतहप'र उद प'र (र ज.) द र जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड म5 एक स मण प! ण स8 पपत कक ज रह ह जजसक ल! पज:म र!व क न म.-च.त0डगढ खण पर गम< र=-र र!व-स शन स स मण प! ण तक र!व-! ईन ब4छ न हत' कमपन ज एक , 1956 क2 ध र 617 क अनतगत पज कत र जक2 कमपन र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ननगम ल!. (र=क ), ज प'र क पक म5 <Eलम अव प क2 ज न ह;
और त: मसस वण र स मण ल!. न उनक द र जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड म5 स8 पपत कक ज रह स मण -प! ण क ल! र!व-! ईन ब4छ न हत' ग म म गर !, म'रल! , 4 स एव प रखड तहस ! ननम4 हड , जज! च.त0 गढ क2 क'! 376.13 4 घ (95.354 हक र) ननज ख तद र= क2 <Eलम क कमपन क ख.I पर <Eलम अजन अचधनन म, 1894 (1894 क कनJ= अचधनन म सख -1) क प वध नL क अनतगत र=क क म ध म स अव प करन हत' र ज सरक र क ननवदन कक ह । इस हत' र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ननगम ल!. (र=क ), ज प'र एवम P मसस वण र स मण ल!. क मध कर र ह ग ह, और त: र ज सरक र क पत त ह त ह कक मसस वण र स मण ल!. क2 र!व-! ईन हत' उक <Eलम क2 आवश कत ह ज र ज क औद चगक पवक स हत' अजन कक ज न आवश क ह ।
अत: <Eलम अव नप अचधनन म, 1894 क2 ध र 4 म5 र ज सरक र क पदत शकक L क प ग करत ह'ए र ज सरक र एतदद र ननमन सE. म5 वरWत ग म म गर !, म'रल! , 4 स एव प रखड तहस ! ननम4 हड , जज! च.त0 गढ क2 क'! 376.13 4 घ (95.354 हक र) ननज ख तद र= क2 <लE म उपर क प जन 8 मसस वण र स मण ल!. क ल! कमपन क ख. पर <Eलम अजन अचधनन म, 1894 क प वध नL क अन'स र र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ल!. (र=क ), ज प'र क म ध म स अजन करन हत' अचधसEच.त करत ह ।"
In the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, it has been stated, inter alia, as under:-
"सख प. 4 (72) उद ग / 1 / 2010: त: कमपन ज एक , 1956 क अनतगत पज कत कमपन मसस वण र स मण ल!. मकर न - र , मदनगज-ककशनगढ, जज! अजमर एव 17, ओल फतहप'र उद प'र (र ज.) द र जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड म5 स मण प! ण क ल! र!व-! ईन != ज रह= ह, और त: मसस वण र स मण ल!. क जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड म5 स8 पपत कक ज रह स मण प! ण क2 र!व ! ईन हत' <Eलम क2 आवश कत ह, और त: मसस वण र स मण ल!. न जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड क ग म म गर !, मर' ल! , 4 स एव प रखड क2 376 4 घ 13 ब4सव (95.354 हक र) ननज ख तद र= क2 <Eलम म5 स कमपन क ख. पर <Eलम अव नप अचधनन म, 1894 (1894 क कनJ= अचधनन म सख -1) क प वध नL क अनतगत र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ननगम ल!.17
(र=क ) क म ध म स <Eलम अव प करन हत' र ज सरक र क ननवदन कक ह, त: मसस वण र स मण ल!. एव र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ननगम ल!. (र=क ) ज प'र क मध उक <Eलम क अव प करन हत' इस प जन 8 कर र ह ग ह, और त: र ज सरक र सत'ष ह कक मसस वण र स मण ल!. क स मण प! ण क2 उक र!व ! ईन क2 स8 पन हत' <लE म क2 आवश कत ह, और त: <Eलम अव नप अचधक र= (उपखण अचधक र=), ननम4 हड द र <Eलम अव नप अचधनन म 1894 क2 ध र 5-ए क अनतगत पसत'त ररप क आध र पर र ज सरक र सत'ष ह कक मसस वण र स मण ल!. द र स मण प! ण क ल! र!व ! ईन स8 पपत कक ज न र ज त8 तहस ! ननम4 हड क आच8क पवक स हत' आवश क ह, और त: र ज सरक र सत'ष ह कक मसस वण र स मण ल!. द र स8 पपत कक ज न व ! स मण प! ण क ल! र!व ! ईन क2 स8 पन हत' जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड क ग म म गर !, म'रल! , 4 स एव प रखड क2 ध र 4 म5 अचधसEच.त क'! <Eलम 376 4 घ 13 ब4सव (95.354 हक र) म5 स 85 4 घ 3 ब4सव (21.556 हक र) ननज ख तद र= क2 <Eलम क र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ननगम ल!. (र=क ) क म ध म स अव प कक ज न आवश क ह, अत: <Eलम अव नप अचधनन म, 1894 क2 ध र 6 म5 र ज सरक र क पदत शकक L क प ग करत ह'ए र ज सरक र एतदद र स!गन सE. म5 वरWत जज! च.त0डगढ क2 तहस ! ननम4 हड क ग म म गर ! क2 40 4 घ 12 ब4सव (10.278 हक र), मर' ल! क2 8 4 घ 6 ब4सव (2.101 हक र), 4 स क2 28 4 घ 4 ब4सव (7.139 हक र) एव प रखड क2 8 4 घ 1 ब4सव (2.038 हक र) क'! 85 4 घ 3 ब4सव (21.556 हक र) ननज ख तद र= क2 <Eलम क उपर क प जन 8 र जस8 न र ज औद चगक पवक स एव पवनन जन ननगम ल!. (र=क ) क म ध म स अव प करन हत' अचधसचE .त करत ह त8 <लE म अव नप अचधक र= (उपखण अचधक र=) ननम4 हड , जज! च.त0डगढ क उक <Eलम अव प करन हत' र ज सरक र एतदद र प चधकत करत ह ।"
Though it appears that ultimately, the land would be used for laying the railway track from the plant to be set up by the WCL to the Gambhiri Road Railway Station for the purpose of transportation of material to and fro the plant, and basically the payment towards this acquisition would emanate from the company WCL but that does not remain conclusive of all the aspects.
It is noticed that the State Cabinet has taken a conscious decision in its meeting dated 12.06.2006 and has issued directions that in the projects where both mining and production work is involved, the Industries Department shall be 18 the nodal agency and the acquisition would be made either under Part-VII of the Act of 1894 or through RIICO on the basis of MOU between the concerned Company and the RIICO. An MOU has been entered into between the State and the respondent-Company WCL on 30.11.2007; and another MOU has been entered into between WCL and RIICO on 14.10.2010. Although under the said MOU dated 14.10.2010, it is provided that the WCL shall deposit the amount with RIICO but that would be keenness money to be adjusted against final compensation amount to be paid by WCL to RIICO at the time of allotment of land; and the RIICO will allot the land under its Disposal Rules of 1979 read with Rajasthan Industrial Area Allotment Rules, 1959 at a price equal to the cost of acquisition of land as per the award to be made, plus 10% administrative expenses, and another 2% towards development funds; and the RIICO will assist the khatedars as well as LAO for finalisation of acquisition proceedings.
Taking a comprehensive view of the matter,this Court is unable to find anything of colourable exercise of powers or pretentious dealings by the Government, RIICO and WCL and there appears no reason to accept the contention that use of the name of RIICO is a ploy. The process appears to have been taken up as a part of larger industrial and development policy of the Government and cannot be termed as illegal or unauthorised.
So far the decision in Devinder Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the position therein had been that the purported contribution from the Government came to be made after filing 19 of the writ petitions in the Court and the Hon'ble Court found that the State had not formed any opinion in that behalf at least when the agreement was executed. True it is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that strict construction of expropriatory legislation like the Act of 1894 is to be made where the property is compulsorily acquired and further that a declaration can either be for public purpose or for Company but not for both. However, in the opinion of this Court, the ratio in Devinder Singh does not help the petitioners in this case. When the acquisition is made in the manner whereby the land in question shall go to RIICO who shall allot it to WCL, it cannot be said that acquisition is not for a public purpose.
It does not remain much a matter of doubt or debate that RIICO is a Government Company and in relation to acquisition for RIICO, Part-VII of the Act of 1894 is not applicable as held by this Court in Hanuman Singh's case (supra).
In Pratibha Nema's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even a nominal contribution from the Government would be the sufficient compliance to second proviso to Section 6 and even by contributing a trifle sum, character of acquisition could be changed by the Government. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in an akin situation that if the payment made on rough and ready basis by the Company to the Nigam stood credited to the account of Nigam, it became a part of the funds of Nigam; and when such fund is utilized for the purpose of payment of compensation, it 20 satisfies requirements of second proviso to Section 6(1) read with Explanation-II. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has said,-
"25. It seems to be fairly clear, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the amount paid by the Company was utilized towards payment of a part of interim compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7-6-1996 and in the absence of this amount, the Nigam was not having sufficient case balance to make such payment. We may even go to the extent of inferring that in all probability, the Nigam would have advised or persuaded the Company to make advance payment towards lease amount as per the terms of the MOU on a rough-and-ready basis, so that the said amount could be utilized by the Nigam for making payment on account of interim compensation. Therefore, it could have been within the contemplation of both the parties that the amount paid by the Company will go towards the discharge of the obligation of the Nigam to make payment towards interim compensation. Even then, it does not in any way support the appellants' stand that the compensation amount had not come out of public revenues. Once the amount paid towards advance lease premium, may be on a rough-and-ready basis, is credited to the account of the Nigam, obviously, it becomes the fund of the Nigam. Such fund, when utilized for the purpose of payment of compensation, wholly or in part, satisfies the requirements of the second proviso to Section 6(1) read with Explanation
2. The genesis of the fund is not the determinative factor, but its ownership in praesenti that matters"
In the opinion of this Court, in the present case, for major factors that even for the purpose of acquisition compensation, when the amount is paid by WCL to RIICO it gets a character of fund of RIICO and thus, payment therefrom towards compensation directly answers the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners. This apart, when the Government has provided various subsidies and exemptions to the Company, that also remains a part of contribution of the Government, may be indirectly. Yet further in the present case, it has been pointed out that the State Government itself has provided about 13 bighas of land to the Company for the purpose of this very Railway Line. Taking these factors together, this Court is not persuaded to consider that acquisition is not for public purpose. The submission that 21 there is no industrial plan of RIICO as such at the area in question does not make out a case in favour of the petitioners because it is not necessary for the purpose of validity of these acquisition proceedings that there ought to be some scheme of the RIICO. The RIICO is meant for industrial development and it could take such development by various modes and methods.
The other part of the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that the elaborate objections taken by them have not been dealt by LAO and the Government has issued notification under Section 6 of the Act without application of mind also remain untenable. Having examined the relevant records, this Court is satisfied that the LAO has dealt with all the major issues in accordance with law and has rejected the contentions with due regard to the facts and circumstances. The Government has also applied itself to the recommendation made by LAO while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act. The fact that the Government has applied itself to the requirements of such acquisition is amply demonstrated from the fact that though in the initial notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 about 376.13 bighas of land was proposed to be acquired but ultimately, in Section 6 declaration, the acquisition has been taken up in relation to 85.03 bighas of land only. The case does not appear to be of colourable exercise of powers or of any mala fide.
It has also been suggested on behalf of the petitioners that MOU with RIICO itself has been the creation of the Company and the RIICO has rather chosen to sign on dotted 22 lines. Such suggestions do not appear correct when viewed in the light of the terms and stipulations of the said MOU.
Having perused the records, this Court is satisfied that the Land Acquisition Officer and so also the Government have proceeded in accordance with law, the proposition for acquisition was taken up with due application of mind and the report under Section 5-A was also made after due hearing and consideration of all the objections; and the decision regarding acquisition through RIICO was also taken having regard to the Policy of the State Government meant for such industrial development. This Court is unable to find any case of colourable exercise of powers so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction.
There had been other ancillary submissions made in this matter by the petitioners that there would have been possible a shorter route for the Railway Line which had been replied on behalf of the respondents that the project has been taken up with due regard to the recommendations made towards nearest railway station. Having examined the plans produced during the course of submissions, this Court is satisfied that there had not been any element of mala fide on the part of the respondents in chalking out the plan from the land in question.
For this Court being satisfied that no interference is called for in these acquisition proceedings, there does not appear necessity of dealing with other part of the objections of the respondents about delay on the part of the petitioners in taking up challenge to the acquisition proceedings that 23 commenced in the month of October 2010.
However, during the course of submissions, this Court has taken note of other part of the matter that there may be cases where because of such acquisition for and ultimate laying of railway track, some of the khatedars may be left with such pieces or parcels of land which may not be of much use at all. It has also been noticed that there would be a 'Y' section of the tracks near the railway station and the agriculturists whose land fall within such 'Y' section might also feel prejudiced. In regard to such positions and eventualities, it has been assured on behalf of the Company in particular that due attention shall be given to the position of such agriculturists; and it would be ensured that prejudice is not caused to such persons because of this acquisition and the project. This Court, even while not interfering with these acquisition proceedings, considers it proper to put these assurances on record; and it shall be expected of the respondents to ensure that adequate compensation/adjustment is given to the agriculturists whose land shall stand acquired in such a partial manner that remaining would not be of practical utility; and so also to such agriculturists whose land would fall inside such 'Y' section.
Subject to the observations foregoing, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
The records be returned to the Additional Advocate General.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
MK 24 (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4086/2011.
Mohan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
....
Date of Order ::::: 31st May 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sunil Mehta ]
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari ]
Mr. Sanjay Mathur ]
Mr. Manoj Pareek ]
Mr. Shanker Lal Sukhwal ], for the petitioners.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. P.S. Bhati ] Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ] Mr. Vinay Kothari ]
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit ], for the respondents.
The writ petition stands dismissed with observations vide common order made in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/2011: Pooran Mal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
MK 25 (3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4197/2011.
Shambhu Lal & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors .
....
Date of Order ::::: 31st May 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sunil Mehta ]
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari ]
Mr. Sanjay Mathur ]
Mr. Manoj Pareek ]
Mr. Shanker Lal Sukhwal ], for the petitioners.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Dr. P.S. Bhati ]
Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ]
Mr. Vinay Kothari ]
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit ], for the respondents.
The writ petition stands dismissed with observations vide common order made in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/2011: Pooran Mal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
MK 26 (4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4313/2011. Gamer Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors ....
Date of Order ::::: 31st May 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sunil Mehta ]
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari ]
Mr. Sanjay Mathur ]
Mr. Manoj Pareek ]
Mr. Shanker Lal Sukhwal ], for the petitioners.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. P.S. Bhati ] Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ] Mr. Vinay Kothari ]
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit ], for the respondents.
The writ petition stands dismissed with observations vide common order made in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/2011: Pooran Mal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
MK 27 (5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4405/2011.
Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors Date of Order ::::: 31st May 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sunil Mehta ]
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari ]
Mr. Sanjay Mathur ]
Mr. Manoj Pareek ]
Mr. Shanker Lal Sukhwal ], for the petitioners.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. P.S. Bhati ] Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ] Mr. Vinay Kothari ]
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit ], for the respondents.
The writ petition stands dismissed with observations vide common order made in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/2011: Pooran Mal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
MK 28 (6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4616/2011.
Manohar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
....
Date of Order ::::: 31st May 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sunil Mehta ]
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari ]
Mr. Sanjay Mathur ]
Mr. Manoj Pareek ]
Mr. Shanker Lal Sukhwal ], for the petitioners.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. P.S. Bhati ] Mr. Nikhil Dungawat ] Mr. Vinay Kothari ]
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit ], for the respondents.
The writ petition stands dismissed with observations vide common order made in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/2011: Pooran Mal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
MK