Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shri Narayan Sharma And Ors vs State (Urban Devlop An Housing Dept)Ors on 4 July, 2017
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
1. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 744 / 2017
1. Shri Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 69 Years, Narakala, Nindar, Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, 17,
Shiv Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Sitaram Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, 17, Shiv
Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Smt. Choti Devi Wife of Late Shri Badri Narayan Sharma (S/o
Shri Ghasi Ram), Narakala, Nindar, Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
5. Chitarmal Sharma S/o Shri Ghasiram Sharma, Narakala, Nindar,
Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Rajasthan
6. Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Ghasiram, Narakala, Nindar,
Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Rajasthan
7. Surajmal Sharma S/o Shri Ghasiram Sharma, Narakala, Nindar,
Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Rajasthan
8. Kishori Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ghasiram Sharma, Narakala,
Nindar, Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Rajasthan
9. Ramrai Sharma S/o Shri Ghasiram Sharma, Narakala, Nindar,
Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Rajasthan
10. Ajay Sharma S/o Shri Ghasiram Sharma, Narakala, Nindar,
Ward No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Rajasthan
(2 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Land Acqusition Officer, Urban Development Scheme,,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, JLN Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7322/2012
1. Prabhati Lal Sharma son of Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, age near
about 62 years, resident of Plot No. 313, Subhash Colony, Shastri
Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Pushpa Sharma wife of Shri Prabhati Lal, age near about
60 years, resident of Plot No. 313, Subhash Colony, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(3 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7935/2015
Prabhu S/o Bhonri Lal, by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur.
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. or Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9183/2015
Baburam Pabari S/o Govind ram, Aged about 85 years by caste
Meena, R/o Plot no. 46, Indira colony, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj)
(4 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
5. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9295/2015
1. Banwari lal S/o Raghunath, aged about 59 years by caste
Jangid Brahmin, R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Raghunath, aged about 50 years by caste
Jangid Brahmin, R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
(5 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
....Respondents
6. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9421/2015
Radhakrishna nair S/o narayan nair aged 65 years by caste nair
R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
....Respondents
7. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15983/2016
1. Maal Chand S/o Bhura, by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Neendar,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
2. Gopal Lal S/o Bhura, by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Neendar,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
3. Shishpal S/o bhura, by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Neendar,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
4. Bheru Lal S/o Bhura, by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Neendar,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
(6 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
8. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17516/2016
1. Nathuram S/o late Shri Bhanwar Lal;
2. Jagdish Prasad S/o late Shri Bhanwar lal;
3. Kalyan S/o late Shri Bhanwar Lal;
4. Rajendra Prasad S/o late Shri Gopal;
5. Sanjay Kumar S/o late Shri Gopal;
6. Dinesh Kumar S/o late Shri Gopal;
7. Prabhati Lal S/o late Shri Narayan;
8. Ramlal Sharma S/o late Shri Narayan;
9. Hanuman S/o late Shri Sheonath;
10. Kanhaiyalal S/o late Shri Sheonath;
11. Smt. Sarju Devi W/o late Shri Ramchandra;
(7 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
12. Kailash S/o late Shri Ramchandra;
13. Rameshwar S/o late Shri Ramchandra;
14. Mohan S/o late Shri Ramchandra;
15. Ashok S/o late Shri Ramchandra;
All residents of Lalaram Bohra Ki Dhani, Village Neendar, Ward No.
1, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
9. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7323/2012
Balaji City Vikas Samiti, through Ranjeet Singh Rathore, President,
son of Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore, aged 40 years, c/o Ward No.
1, Village Neendar, Sikar Road, Jaipur.
(8 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
10. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7325/2012
Ramnath son of Shri Govinda, by caste Kumawat, aged ........
years, resident of Village Neendar, Tehsil, Amer, Dist. Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(9 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
11. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8313/2012
1. Om Prakash, aged 60 years,
2. Munna Lal,
3. Gopal,
No. 1 to 3 are sons of Shri Chhotu Ram
4. Sundar Kanwar widow of Shri Kailash
5. Roop Kanwar daughter of Shri Kailash
6. Himmat Singh son of Shri Kailash
All residents of village Neendar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
(10 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
....Respondents
12. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8318/2012
1. Gheesa, aged 80 years,
2. Prabhu, aged 74 years,
Both sons of Shri Dhanna, by caste Brahmin, residents of Village
Neendar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
....Respondents
13. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7199/2012
1. Gopal Lal son of Shri Sukhdev, age about 69 years, by caste
Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer, Dist.
Jaipur.
(11 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
2. Govind Narayan son of Shri Sukhdev, age near about 64 years
by caste Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil
Amer, Dist. Jaipur.
3. Amar Chand son of Shri Sukhdev, age near about 55 years, by
caste Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer,
Dist. Jaipur.
4. Ramesh Chand son of Shri Sukhdev, age near about 45 years
by caste Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil
Amer, Dist. Jaipur.
5. Satyanarayan son of Shri Sukhdev, age near about 40 years, by
caste Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer,
Dist. Jaipur.
6. Nanu son of Kana Ram, age near about 60 yers, by caste
Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer, Dist.
Jaipur.
7. Rameshwar son of Kana Ram, age near about 55 years, by
caste Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer,
Dist. Jaipur.
8. Chouthmal son of Kana Ram, age near about 50 years, by caste
Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer, Distt.
Jaipur.
9. Moti son of Prabhu Lal, age near about 35 years, by caste
Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer, Dist.
Jaipur.
....Petitioners
(12 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
14. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7321/2012
1. Smt. Supyar Kanwar wife of Shri Prem Singh Shekhwat, age
near about 50 resident of village Neendar, Tehsil Amer, Dist.
Jaipur.
2. Seeta Devi wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, age near about
30 years resident of village Neendar, tehsil Amer, Dist. Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
(13 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
15. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9141/2012
1. Gopal,
2. Laxmi Narayan,
3. Hanuman Sahay,
4. Omprakash,
5. Bholaram,
Both sons of Shri Sadhuram @ Sadiya, by caste Brahmin,
residents of village Neendar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(14 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
...Respondents
16. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9144/2012
Gopal lal son of Shri Sadhuram @ Sadiya, by caste Brahmin,
residents of village Neendar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
...Respondents
17. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9885/2012
1. Laxmi Narayan son of Shri Sadhuram @ Sadiya.
2. Bhola Ram son of Shri Sadhuram @ Sadiya.
Both by caste Brahman, residents of Village Neendar, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur.
....Petitioners
(15 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
...Respondents
18. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9956/2012
Gopal son of Shri Ramla, by caste mali, residents of village
Neendar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
...Respondents
(16 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
19. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4838/2014
1. Smt. Sushila W/o Shri Puran Mal, age about 59 years, by-caste
Jat, R/o Plot No. B-40, Sanjay Colony, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Sushila D/o Ganga Singh, age about 60 years, by-caste Jat, R/o
Plot No. 1, Sanjay colony, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
...Respondents
20. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4839/2014
1. Ranveer Singh S/o Late Shri Rao Surendra Singh, aged about
64 years
2. Manhendra Singh S/o Late Shri Rao Surendra Singh,
3. Virendra Singh S/o Late Shri Rao Surendra Singh,
4. Ravindra Singh S/o Late Shri Rao Surendra Singh,
5. Gajendra Singh S/o Late Shri Rao Surendra Singh,
(17 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
6. Smt. Mahendra Kumari W/o Late Shri Rao Surendra Singh,
All By-Caste Rajput R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
at present R/o Neendar House, Topkhana Ka Rasta, Chandpole
Bazar, Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
...Respondents
21. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3176/2015
1. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Ridh Narayan Ji Sharma, age
about 55 years,
2. Smt. Premlata Sharma W/o shri Om Prakash Sharma, aged
about 50 years,
Both by caste Brahmin, r/o JMC 599, Kheda Mahapura, Road No.1,
Sikar Road, Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
(18 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
...Respondents
22. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6411/2015
1. Gopal S/o Shri Jeevan
2. Kalyan Sahai S/o Shri hanuman Sahai
3. Bhuri Devi W/o Late Bodu Ram
4. Prabhati Lal S/o Bodu Ram
5. Sedu Ram S/o Jhutha Ram
6. Madan Lal S/o Jhutha Ram
7. Vinod S/o Late Sharwan Kumar
8. Jitendra S/o Late Sharwan Kumar
9. Surajmal S/o Hanuman
10.Mohan Lal S/o Hanuman
All by caste Kumawat, R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil Amer, District
Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
(19 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
...Respondents
23. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6412/2015
1. Smt. Bhuri Widow of Bodu
2. Prabhat adopted son of Bodu
both by caste Kumawat, R/o Village Nindar, Tehsil Amer, District
Jaipur.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(20 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
...Respondents
24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9140 / 2012
Hanuman Sahay Son of Shri Sadhuram @ Sadiya, by Caste
Brahmin, Village Neendar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
----Petitioner
versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
3. Jaipur Development Authority Through Its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents
25. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7324 / 2012
1. Ravi Gemini son of Shri Radheyshyam Gemini, age near about
38 years, resident of D-240, Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur.
2. Kapil Gemini son of Shri Radheyshyam Gemini, age near about
30 years, resident of D-240, Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur.
3. Smt. Shakuntala Gemini wife of Shri Radheyshyam Gemini,
age near about 60 years resident of D-240, Bihari Marg, Banipark,
Jaipur.
..Petitioner
versus
1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi.
(21 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Schemes,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Environment and
Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
..Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Manish Sharma
Mr Bharat Vyas, Sr Adv with Kapil Vyas
Mr KN Sharma
Mr Govind Sharma
Mrs Neetu Bhansali for Mr SK Jindal
For Respondent(s) : Mr Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate
General with Mr Jatin Agrawal
Mr Amit Kuri
Mrs Manjeet Kaur, CGPC for Mr RD Rastogi,
Additional Solicitor General of India for
Union of India
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
JUDGMENT
Date of Judgment: 4th July, 2017
(22 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
By this bunch of writ petitions, a challenge is made to
the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short "the Act of 1894") followed by declaration under section
6 of the Act of 1894. The award dated 31.5.2013 has also been
assailed. The prayer is to declare acquisition as lapsed and,
accordingly, land may be made free from acquisition.
Learned counsel submit that the land situated in Village
- Neendar, Tehsil - Amer, Jaipur was recorded in the name of
petitioners. It has been acquired despite being fertile land and
surrounded by hills having water harvesting zone.
The Notification under section 4 was issued on
4.10.2010 and published in the official gazette on 7.11.2010 to
propose acquisition of 286.27 hectares land. The petitioners
submitted their objections under section 5A of the Act of 1894.
The Jaipur Development Authority (for short "the JDA") filed reply
to the objections. The petitioners thereupon submitted written
arguments before the Land Acquisition Officer. No proceedings
thereupon took place between 20.1.2011 to 1.12.2011. The Land
Acquisition Officer issued notice to the JDA on 1.12.2011 pointing
out discrepancies in the revenue record. A clarification was given
by the JDA and on 2.12.2011, Land Acquisition Officer prepared
the report and gave direction to send it to the State Government.
The declaration under section 6 was made on 7.12.2011. The
(23 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
petitioners made an application under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') to get a copy of the Gazette
Notification published under section 6 of the Act of 1894. It was
not supplied despite an order by the Appellate Authority under the
Act of 2005 thus a presumption should be drawn that no
declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made. The
award was passed on 31.5.2013.
It is stated that acquisition of land was not for public
purpose but to earn profit. The fact aforesaid is coming out from
the note-sheet of the Dy Commissioner where calculations have
been given. It was assessed that out of the total land sought to be
acquired, 50% area would be developed for residence and 10%
for commercial. 25% land would be given towards compensation.
The revenue generated from it would be of Rs.909 crore. The cost
of development would be around Rs.343 crore apart from Rs.55
crore towards misc. expenses. The JDA would earn profit of
Rs.511 crore and if the compensation is given in terms of money
then the profit would be Rs.711.60 crore. The fact aforesaid
shows that the land was not acquired for public purpose but to
earn profit.
The prior approval before issuance of Notification under
section 4 of the Act of 1894 was not taken. The compliance of
section 3(f)(vi) of the Act of 1894 has not been made. The
approval by the Chairman, JDA cannot be considered to be of the
(24 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
government for issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act.
It is also submitted that the survey, as contemplated
under section 4(2) of the Act, was also not conducted. As per the
provision aforesaid, an officer authorised by the government
needs to carry out detailed survey. The purpose of the survey is to
check feasibility, qua public purpose. In absence of survey, there
was no occasion for the government to issue notification under
section 6 of the Act. In fact, no scheme prior to issuance of
notification under section 4 of the Act was formulated in terms of
section 38 and 39 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act 1982
(for short 'the JDA Act'). It is held to be mandatory by the Apex
Court in the case of "Sanjeet Singh versus State of Punjab",
(2007) 6 SCC 292. In absence of the scheme, acquisition
proceedings to vitiate. It is also stated that environmental
clearance was also not taken despite required in the instant case.
Learned counsel submit that even personal hearing on
the objections under section 5A of the Act of 1894 was not given
to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted objections under
section 5A of the Act. On 3.2.2011, respondents submitted their
reply to the objections. On 21.2.2011, petitioners submitted their
written arguments. The matter was kept pending by the Land
Acquisition Officer for the reasons best known to him. On
2.12.2011, a report was prepared and sent to the government. It
was without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(25 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
It is also a fact that when written arguments were filed by the
petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer was somebody else. In
absence of personal hearing, provisions of section 5A of the Act of
1894 has been flouted. The acquisition of land deserves to be set
aside. Reference of following judgments has been given to support
the argument -
1.Kamal Trading versus State of West Bengal, (2012)2 SCC 25
2.Shri Mandir Sita Ramji versus Lt Governor of Delhi & ors, (1975)
4 SCC 298
3.Farid Ahmed versus Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, (1976)
3 SCC 719
4.Shyam Nandan versus State of Bihar, (1993) 4 SCC 255
5.Sukumar M Khot versus State, (2006) 2 LACC 607
6.Ramesh versus State of Maharashtra, 2006(2) LACC 6002
7.Sumer Khan versus State of Rajasthan, 2009(3) WLC 363
8.Union of India versus Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14.
It is also stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has
failed to decide the objections with application of mind. In absence
of finding on each objection, report under section 5A of the Act of
1894 remains for the sake of it. Reference of following judgments
has been given to support their argument -
(26 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
1.Surinder Singh Brar versus Union of India, (2013(1) SCC 403
2.Kamal Trading versus State of West Bengal, (2012) 2 SCC 25
3.Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms versus State of Haryana, (2013)
4 SCC 210
4.Women Education Trust versus State of Haryana, (2013) 6
SCALE 684
5.Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792
The declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was
made after one year from the last publication of notice under
section 4 of the Act. The public notice under section 4 was issued
on 1.11.2010, whereas, it has been taken to be on 14.12.2010.
The declaration under section 6 was made on 16.12.2011, which
is after one year. It cannot be taken on 7.12.2011 as it was
published in gazette on 16.12.2011. The acquisition vitiates on
the aforesaid ground also.
Learned counsel further submitted that report under
section 5A was not sent to the government along with the record
of the proceedings though required as per section 5A(2). The
State Government failed to apply its mind objectively before
accepting the report for declaration under section 6 of the Act of
1894. It could not have been in absence of the record.
It is urged that the Land Acquisition Officer fabricated
(27 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
the order sheet to make a report on a manipulated day. In view of
the above, acquisition of land becomes illegal. The Land
Acquisition Officer prepared the report on 2.12.2011 and sent it to
the State Government. 3rd and 4th December, 2011 were Saturday
and Sunday thus no decision could have been taken by the State
Government on the aforesaid dates. The remaining days were 5 th
and 6th December, 2011 and, according to the respondents,
declaration was made on 7.12.2011. There was hardly any time
for the State Government to apply its mind to make declaration
under section 6 of the Act of 1894. Reference of following
judgments of the Apex Court has been given to support the
argument -
1.Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms versus State of Haryana,(2013)
4 SCC 210
2.Women Education Trust versus State of Haryana, (2013) 6
SCALE 684
A further argument of learned counsel is regarding
fraud in preparation of report by the Land Acquisition Officer and
colourable exercise of power by the State Government. It is in
reference to report under section 5A of the Act of 1894. It is
stated that report was prepared on the back date thus fraud has
been played therein. Learned counsel has made reference of
following judgments in support of their argument -
(28 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
1.Raghbir Singh Sehrawat versus State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC
792
2.Kamal Trading versus State of West Bengal, (2012) 2 SCC 25
3.Surinder Singh Brar versus Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 403
4.Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms versus State of Haryana, (2013)
4 SCC 210
5.Women Education Trust versus State of Haryana, (2013) 6
SCALE 684
The State Government has given written submissions
stating several facts which are not part of the reply. The
contention that land is not part of ecological/ environmental
sensitive zone has no foundation. The plea of delay and laches
raised by the State Government is misplaced in view of the fact
that most of the writ petitions were filed in the year 2012 followed
by few more writ petitions subsequently. The plea of delay and
laches is thus not made out. The prayer is accordingly to set aside
the acquisition proceedings and the award passed subsequently.
Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra
Prasad has contested the writ petitions. It is stated that master
development plan was published on 06.11.2009 to invite
objections from the public. In the said plan, area was proposed for
housing purpose. The plan was prepared after considering
(29 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
requirement of housing for Jaipur city with its expansion. After
considering the objections, the plan was approved by the authority
and it became effective as a consequence thereof. The Jaipur City
is expanding in view of increase in population. Taking into
consideration all the relevant aspects, scheme was planned and
after the PT survey, followed by approval of the competent
authority, decision to acquire the land was taken. The reference of
the document at annexure-16 to 19 in CW 744/17, Shri Narayan
Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors has been given.
The notification under section 4 of the Act was
published on 4.10.2010 followed by a corrected notification on
10.11.2010. The publication of notice under section 4 in the
locality was made on 14.12.2010. The declaration under section 6
was made on 7.12.2011. The publication of declaration in the
locality was made on 13.4.2012 followed by the award on
31.5.2013. The facts given above show that proceedings for
acquisition were made as per the provisions of the Act of 1894.
Learned Additional Advocate General has taken
objection about delay and laches. It is in respect of those petitions
preferred in the year 2014 and onwards. Reference of following
judgments has been given -
1.State of Rajasthan & ors versus DR Laxmi & ors, (1996) 6 SCC
(30 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
445,
2.Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited
versus Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & ors, (2012) 12 SCC 797,
3.Chairman, UP Jal Nigam & anr versus Jaswant Singh & anr,
(2006) 11 SCC 464,
4.State of Maharashtra versus Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683,
5.Aflatoon & ors versus Lt. Governor of Delhi & ors, (1975) 4 SCC
285,
6.Banda Development Authority, Banda versus versus Moti Lal
Agarwal & ors, (2011) 5 SCC 394, and
7.Virendra Singh & 85 ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors,
2016(3) WLC(Raj.) 454
It is also stated that no objection under section 5A was
submitted by many petitioners thus they cannot raise issue in
reference to it. The details of such writ petitions are as under -
1.CW 8313/2012, Om Prakash & ors versus State of Rajasthan &
ors
2.CW 8318/2012, Gheesa & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors
3.CW 9140/2012, Hanuman Sahay vs State of Rajasthan & ors
4.CW 9141/2012, Gopal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors
5.CW 9144/2012, Gopal Lal versus State of Rajasthan & ors
6.CW 9956/2012, Gopal versus State of Rajasthan & ors
(31 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
7.CW 6411/2015, Gopal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors
8.CW 6412/2015, Smt Bhuri & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors
9.CW 9183/2015, Baburam Pabari versus State of Rajasthan & ors
10.CW 9295/2015, Banwari Lal & anr vs State of Rajasthan & ors
11.CW 9421/2015,Radhakrishna Nair vs State of Rajasthan & ors
In absence of objections under section 5A of the Act of
1894, petitioners therein deemed to have waived and relinquished
their rights and estopped to question the acquisition in reference
to the aforesaid provision. Reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of "Delhi Administration versus Gurdip Singh
Uban & ors", AIR 2000 SC 3737 has been made.
It is also stated that writ petitioner in Civil Writ
No.4838/2014, Smt Sushila & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors
has voluntarily surrendered the land for getting compensation in
the shape of developed land. The petitioner No.1 has even
applied for withdrawal of the writ petition. On surrender of rights
by land holders, they are estopped to challenge the acquisition.
Reference of the judgments in the case of "Sikkim Subba
Associates versus State of Sikkim", AIR 2001 SC 2062, "Chairman,
UP Jal Nigam & ors versus Jaswant Singh & anr" and "Virendra
Singh & 85 ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors", 2016(3) WLC
(Raj) 454 has been given.
(32 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
Other objection is regarding maintainability of the CW
7323/2012, Balaji City Vikas Samiti versus Union of India & ors
which has been filed by Vikas Samiti of the plot holders. It is
alleged that co-operative society purchased the land through
agreement to sale is not entitled to question validity of acquisition
what to say about Vikas Samiti of plot holders given 'patta' by
such a co-operative society. The rights of the co-operative society
to challenge acquisition based on agreement to sale has not been
accepted by this court in the case of "Krishna Housing Cooperative
Society Ltd versus Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur & ors, 1993(3)
WLC (Raj.)583 thus on the preliminary objections, the writ
petitions mentioned above may be dismissed.
Learned Additional Advocate General Mr Rajendra
Prasad submitted that allegations have been made about
availability of land in the scheme developed by the JDA, yet land
of Village - Neendar has been acquired. It is to benefit the
colonisers who developed their schemes and otherwise land is
cultivated by the petitioners. The facts aforesaid could not be
proved by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the area in
question was never declared to be ecological zone. It does not
exist even in the Master Development Plan - 2011. The petitioners
have failed to prove it to be in ecological zone.
It is also submitted that the area has been developed
by the JDA and no private scheme of any developer exists, rather,
(33 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
all those schemes are on the opposite direction and are far away
from the land so acquired. The required consideration before
proposing acquisition was made and, in fact, the area was
declared to be residential even in the Master Development Plan.
Hence, it is erroneous to say that exercise, as envisaged under
section 3(f) (vi), has not been made.
The allegation of profiteering has been made by
referring to a note sheet. It is in ignorance of the fact that before
a project is conceived, its viability has to be looked into. All
relevant aspects, which includes quantum of compensation, has to
be taken into consideration. The compensation is calculated
tentatively based on DLC rate but, at times and invariably, it is
enhanced on a reference to the civil court. Thus the figures in the
note sheet were tentative. The petitioners have failed to consider
that if the quantum of compensation is increased and aforesaid is
not taken into consideration by keeping a margin, how it would be
paid. In view of the above, vague allegations of profit making
have been made. It cannot be only due to use of word "profit".
It is also a fact that while carrying out development
work, prices may increase with passage of time as it is going to
happen in this case. In view of the above, allegations of profit
making are without any basis. The development of residential
scheme is otherwise an important function of the JDA as held by
the Apex Court in the case of "Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti
(34 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
versus State of Rajasthan & ors", (1993) 2 SCC 662.
Learned counsel for respondents has further made a
reference of the note sheet of the Land Acquisition Officer after
submission of the objections under section 5A of the Act. It is
alleged that no notice for personal hearing was issued and date of
the report has been manipulated to bring declaration within
prescribed time. Most of the petitioners have not filed objections
thus the argument aforesaid is not available to them. In those
cases where objections were filed, they were mostly identical or
verbatim the same. The petitioners were represented through the
counsel. The report under section 5A of the Act of 1894 discloses
that on receipt of the objections, reply of the JDA was sought and
filed. It was given to the counsel appearing for the objectors.
Counsel submitted written arguments and they have been
considered. When written arguments had been submitted
personally, question of issuance of further notice does not arise.
The allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or non-
grant of personal hearing is not made out. The order for
preparation of report under section 5A was made after referring to
the reply submitted by the JDA. The objectors were represented
through Advocates and had submitted their written arguments.
The petitioners have relied on the note sheet dated
2.12.2011 prior to the note sheet dated 1.12.2011 to argue the
case of fabrication. It is based on mistaken belief. The note sheet
(35 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
dated 1.12.2011 was dealing with separate issue. It was on the
representation of the khatedar regarding change of their address
and for making payment of compensation. A decision was taken
for its consideration at the appropriate stage. The note sheet
dated 2.12.2011 was for the report under section 5A of the Act.
The report dated 2.12.2011 was to be maintained
separately but due to acquisition of one and same land, it was
taken with other issues. The petitioners want to take benefit of
mixing up on two note sheet dealing with separate issues. In fact,
note sheet dated 2.12.2011 was not required to be placed before
the note sheet dated 1.12.2011, because it was to be drawn
separately and is subsequent to 1.12.2011. If it would have been
prior to 1.12.2011, question of manipulation could have been
raised.
The argument about declaration under section 6 of the
Act of 1894 after lapse of one year is in ignorance of the facts that
after initial Notification under section 4 on 4.10.2010, corrected
Notification was issued on 9.11.2010. It was published in the
gazette on 10.11.2010 followed by publication in news paper on
13.11.2010. The pasting of the notice was made on 13.12.2010
and 14.12.2010. Copy of the notice dated 14.12.2010 indicates
the fact aforesaid. The last date of publication of the notice under
section 4 is on 13/14.12.2010. The declaration under section 6
was made within one year i.e. on 7.12.2011.
(36 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
An argument has been raised that the report was sent
without record. The government could not have considered the
report in absence of record to make declaration within five days.
The argument aforesaid is hypothetical as no reason exist as to
why the government cannot consider and make declaration within
the time intervening. The record of proceedings was sent along
with the report.
It is also submitted that notification under section 4 of
the Act of 1894 was issued after compliance of section 38 and 39
of the Jaipur Development Act, 1982.
Learned counsel has further raised the issue of
permissibility of judicial review about objective satisfaction of the
government for declaration under section 6 of the Act. A reference
of the judgment in the case of "Smt Somavanti & ors versus State
of Punjab & ors", AIR 1963 SC 151 and "Sooraram Pratap Reddy &
ors versus District Collector, Ranga Reddy District & ors", (2008) 9
SCC 552 has been given. The prayer is accordingly made to
dismiss all the writ petitions. Learned counsel for respondents has
given reference of several judgments to support his arguments
which would be considered while dealing with the issues.
I have considered rival submissions of the parties and
(37 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
scanned the matter carefully.
The facts of the case have already been narrated thus
need not to be reiterated. The challenge to the acquisition has
been made on many grounds. Before dealing, it would be relevant
to consider preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ
petition.
The first objection is of delay and laches in filing the
writ petitions. The writ petitions have been filed in the year 2014
and onwards. The others in the year 2012 to challenge the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, issued in the year
2010, followed by declaration under Section 6 in the year 2011.
An award was passed on 31st May, 2013 but ground of challenge is
not in reference to it. The writ petitions preferred by the
petitioners in the year 2014 and onwards are after expiry of period
of nearly three years or more from the date of declaration. The
petitioners have failed to give justification of delay other than to
say that when earlier writ petitions have been filed to challenge
the acquisition, subsequent petitions may not be dismissed on the
ground of laches.
I find that there is a delay of around three years and
more to challenge the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of
1894 and all the actions taken prior to it which includes a report
(38 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
under section 5A. The award has been challenged but no ground
for it has been urged thus it has not given cause of action to the
petitioners. It applies only to the writ petitions preferred in the
year 2014 and onwards. The delay to challenge the acquisition is
fatal in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases
of State Vs. D.R. Laxmi (supra), A.P. I.I.C.L. Vs. Chintamanani
(supra), U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jaswant Singh (supra), State of
Maharashtra Vs. Digamber (supra), Aflatoon Vs. LTG Delhi (supra),
Banda Development Vs. Moti Lal (supra) and of this court in the
case reported in 2016(3) WLC (Raj.) 454. However, I am
considering other issues also.
The other objection is about waiver, acquiescence and
estoppel in those cases where objections under Section 5A of the
Act of 1894 were not raised. Those writ petitions are detailed out
as under:
Item No. Case No. Title
107 C.W. 8313/2012 OM PRAKASH AND ORS VS. STATE
108 C.W. 8318/2012 GHEESA AND ANR VS. STATE
109 C.W. 9140/2012 HANUMAN SAHAY VS. STATE
110 C.W. 9141/2012 GOPAL AND ORS VS. STATE
111 C.W. 9144/2012 GOPAL LAL VS. STATE
113 C.W. 9956/2012 GOPAL VS. STATE
117 C.W. 6411/2015 GOPAL AND ORS VS. STATE
118 C.W. 6412/2015 SMT BHURI AND ANR VS. STATE
(39 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
120 C.W. 9183/2015 BABURAM PABARI VS. STATE
121 C.W. 9295/2015 BANWARI LAL & ANR VS. STATE
122 C.W. 9421/2015 RADHAKRISHNA NAIR VS. STATE
In the writ petitions referred above, objections under
Section 5A of the Act of 1894 were not raised thus argument in
reference to the aforesaid provision cannot be accepted. In
absence of objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894,
petitioners have waived their rights given therein. The view
aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban and Ors.,
reported in AIR 2000 SC 3737. The relevant paras 53 to 56 and 60
of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:
"53. In Abhey Ram as well as in the judgment in the Civil
Appeals, it has been clearly stated that those claimants
who have not filed objections to the section 4 notification
cannot be permitted to contend before Court that the
section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned.
Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of section 6
declaration on that ground. We shall elaborate this aspect
further.
54. Now objections under section 5A, if filed, can relale to
the contention that :(i) the purpose for which land is
being acquired is not a public purpose (ii) that even if the
purpose is a pubic purpose, the land of the objector is not
necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be
served by other land already proposed or some other land
to which the objector may refer or (iii) that in any event,
(40 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the
special fact-situation in winch the objector is placed, it is
a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition.
Objection (ii) is personal lo the land and objection (iii) is
personal lo the objector.
55. Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a
personal element which has to be pleaded in the section
5A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the
notification must be conclusive proof that the said person
had "waived" all objections which were personal and
which he could have raised. However, so far as objection
(i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the
affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose
was not a public purpose.
56. Learned Solicitor General Sri Salve rightly argued that
in respect of each land owner whose land is acquired, the
section 4 notification if it-is sought to be avoided on
personal grounds as staled in (ii) and (iii) above, it is
necessary that objection be filed to avoid a voidable
notification. Otherwise, the notifi-calion which is not
avoided on any personal grounds, remains operative and
personal objections are deemed lo be waived.
60. In the present cases there is no dispute that the
purpose is a public purpose. The applicant had not filed
objections on grounds personally applicable to him or to
his land seeking exclusion from acquisition, and the
objections in that behalf must be deemed to have been
waived. Such a person cannot be allowed to file a writ
petition seeking the quashing of section 5A inquiry and
section 6 declaration on personal grounds if he had not
filed objections. Points 4 and 5 are decided accordingly
against the applicants."
(41 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
In one Writ Petition bearing No.4838/2014, those
petitioners, who have surrendered title of the land to get
compensation in the shape of 25% developed land, cannot contest
the writ petition. It is settled law that once title of the land is
surrendered, the acquisition cannot be questioned. It would cover
only those petitioners in the writ petitions referred above, who
had surrendered title of the land and not to others.
The objection has also been taken about maintainability
of the writ petition filed by Balaji City Vikas Samiti. It is of the
plot-holders given plots by a Co-operative Society. It is submitted
that no sale deed exists in favour of the Co-operative Society. In
absence of sale deed, right would not confer even on the Co-
operative Society what to say on the plot-holders to challenge the
acquisition. They are not considered to be persons interested in
view of the judgment of this court in the case of "The Krishna Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. & 2 Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Housing
Board, Jaipur & Ors.", reported in 1993 (3) WLC (Raj.) 583. Thus,
writ petitions in the hands of Vikas Samiti is not maintainable
because plot-holders cannot claim better title than possessed by
the Cooperative Society. The preliminary objections are decided
with the aforesaid.
The arguments on merit of the case:
(42 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
The first issue is regarding acquisition of land to make
profit and not for public purpose. The argument has been raised in
reference to a notesheet where calculation about feasibility of
acquisition has been made. It shows that there would be surplus
of Rs.5.11 crore if compensation is given in the shape of allotment
of developed land and otherwise to be of Rs.711.6 crore. It is to
make profit thus acquisition is not for public purpose. It is not in
dispute that acquired land is going to be used for development of
residential as well as commercial areas to cater future need of the
public. It is due to expansion of Jaipur City. The acquisition to
develop housing scheme with commercial area is a public purpose.
The JDA is to work to urbanised development and has been
accepted by the Apex Court in the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported
in (1993) 2 SCC 662. The development of the residential scheme
is held to be one of the important functions of the JDA, thereby,
acquisition is for public purpose. There exists even presumption of
existence of public purpose in view of Section 63 of the Act of
1894.
The issue aforesaid was earlier considered by the Apex
Court in the case of Smt. Somavanti & Ors. Vs. The State of
Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 151 and in the case of
Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors. Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy
District & Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 552 also. If acquisition of
land is for development of residential scheme, it is for public
(43 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
purpose. It is, however, alleged that JDA would be making profit.
The notesheet referred by the petitioners shows surplus amount
but it is only to see viability and the figures therein cannot be said
to be final. They are tentative figures because what would be the
amount of compensation is always dependable on the award, that
too, subject to reference under section 18 of the Act of 1894. In
the same manner, development charges remain tentative because
with passage of time, it may increase. If surplus amount remains,
it cannot be said to be profiteering because JDA keep funds for
development of the city and related purpose. It is not a company
to make profit thus first argument raised by the petitioners cannot
be accepted only for the reason that word 'profit' has been
mentioned in the notesheet.
The second argument is about approval of the
Government before issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894 and no survey under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1894
was conducted after Notification under Section 4. The non-
compliance of Section 3(f)(vi) apart from section 39 of the Jaipur
Development Authority Act, 1982 has been alleged.
The issues aforesaid have been replied by the
respondents. It is stated that before initiation of acquisition, a
draft plan was published to invite objections. It was proposed for
residential area. After dealing with the objections, Master
Development Plan was finalised. The land in dispute was shown for
(44 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
housing purposes. The facts given above reveal that after proper
survey and inviting objections, area was kept for residential
purpose. The nature of the land has otherwise been indicated in
the Jamabandi and it does not show that entire land was irrigated.
The environmental clearance has not been taken, however,
petitioners could not show as to how it vitiate acquisition.
The argument in reference to objections under Section
5A of the Act of 1894 has also been raised. This would not be
available to those who did not raise it. The fact available on record
and as has been presented by both the parties shows that few
petitioners submitted objections under Section 5A of the Act of
1894 which were verbatim the same. It was raised through an
Advocate. On submission of the objections, reply of the JDA was
sought and given with a copy to the learned counsel appeared on
behalf of objectors. The petitioners' Advocate then presented
written arguments which were given personally and with the
presentation of the written arguments, requirement of personal
hearing stands completed. It is not that even if somebody is
appearing before the Land Acquisition Officer either in person or
through a Pleader, he needs to be given notice. It is moreso when
appearance was on the dates fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
With the submission of written arguments, hearing gets completed
thus allegation of denial of personal hearing cannot be accepted.
It is, however, true that written arguments were not submitted
before a Land Acquisition Officer, who decided it subsequently. The
(45 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
aforesaid does not mean that personal hearing is not given though
in strict term, the petitioners, could have been called again but
written arguments having been submitted, no purpose was
existing to call the Pleader.
The objections submitted by the objectors were dealt
with by the Land Acquisition Officer. The report need to be
submitted after consideration of the objections. It is not in the
manner an order is passed in the judicial side. Learned counsel for
the petitioners has made reference of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kamal Trading (supra) and M/s. Sita Ramji
(supra) apart from other judgments. Learned counsel for the
respondents has also cited the judgments to support his
arguments. The perusal of the judgments referred by the
petitioners reveal that Section 5A of the Act of 1894 is of
significance. The Land Acquisition Officer has to consider the
objections. The perusal of the report shows required consideration
with the finding that land is required for public purpose thus
objections cannot be accepted. The objections were the same as
raised in the writ petition. It is the nature of land and absence of
environment clearance apart from non-compliance of Section 39 of
the JDA Act etc. The Land Acquisition Officer has made reference
of the objections followed by reply by the JDA and the written
arguments of petitioners. Each objection has been dealt with
thereupon with the finding referred above. It cannot be said that
objection under Section 5A of the Act has not been considered.
(46 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
The issue about backdating of the report has also been
raised. It is stated that after recording notesheet of 1 st December,
2011, report was prepared on 2 nd December, 2011. It is, no doubt,
true that ordersheet dated 2nd December, 2011 is placed prior to
notesheet of 1st December, 2011 but both are dealing with
different issues. The perusal of the notesheet dated 1.12.2011
reveals it to be in reference to the prayer of the khatedar to allow
compensation to them. It has nothing to do with the report on the
objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 which were decided
on 2nd December, 2011. It is true that different issues should have
been dealt with in the separate file. It does not mean that there is
fabrication of dates because there was no need for it. After
recording of the note sheet on 1 st December, 2011, it is not that a
report was made prior to it. If that would have been so, argument
of learned counsel for petitioners could have been accepted. The
report was prepared on 2nd December, 2011 i.e. subsequent to 1 st
December, 2011. Hence, argument of fabrication of the documents
is not made.
It is true that in one case, where objections have been
raised by Vikas Samiti, it has not been considered. It is for the
reason that Vikas Samiti is not considered to be a person
interested. It is in view of judgment of this court in the case of
The Krishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan
Housing Board, Jaipur (supra). The Vikas Samiti was created by
(47 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
the plot-holders who were given plots by the Co-operative Society.
It was based on agreement to sell in favour of the society but
without a sale deed, title is not passed on so as to consider Co-
operative Society or its allottees to be person interested, so as
the Vikas Samiti. Thus non-consideration of the objections in the
hands of person not falling in the definition of "person interested"
cannot be said to be illegal.
The argument regarding delay in issuance of
declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is another issue. It
is stated that after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894 on 4th October, 2010, last publication was made on 1 st
November, 2010, which has been disputed by the respondents. It
is submitted that after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of
the Act of 1894 on 4th October, 2010, corrected Notification was
issued followed by its publication in the newspaper. After the
aforesaid, an order was passed on 13 th December, 2010 to place
the file on 12th January, 2011 after publication of notice in the
locality. It cannot be said to be a manipulated notesheet. The
public notices were affixed in locality on 13 th December, 2010 and
14th December, 2010. The aforesaid fact is coming out from the
notesheet. In view of the above, last publication under Section 4
of the Act of 1894 is on 13 th and 14th December, 2010. The
declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made on 7 th
December, 2011 with its publication in the gazette on 16 th
December, 2011. The petitioners have taken date of publication in
(48 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
Gazette to be relevant date i.e. 16 th December, 2011. The question
is as to whether publication of declaration is the date it is
published in the Gazette or on issuance of it. Section 6 of the Act
of 1894 is quoted hereunder for the aforesaid purpose:
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public
purpose. - (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of
this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after
considering the report, if any, made under section
5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is
needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a
declaration shall be made to that effect under the
signature of a Secretary to such Government or of
some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and
different declarations may be made from time to time
in respect of different parcels of any land covered by
the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I)
irrespective of whether one report or different reports
has or have been made (wherever required) under
section 5A, sub-section (2)];
Provided that no declaration in respect of any
particular land covered by a notification under section
4, sub-section (1)-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance,
1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of
the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of
1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years
from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(49 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984),
shall be made after the expiry of one year from the
date of the publication of the notification:]
Provided further that no such declaration shall be
made unless the compensation to be awarded for
such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly
or partly out of public revenues or some fund
controlled or managed by a local authority.
Explanation 1. - In computing any of the periods
referred to in the first proviso, the period during
which any action or proceeding to be taken in
pursuance of the notification issued under section 4,
sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall
be excluded.
Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to be
awarded for such property is to be paid out of the
funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the
State, such compensation shall be deemed to be
compensation paid out of public revenues.]
(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official
Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in
the locality in which the land is situated of which at
least one shall be in the regional language, and the
Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of
such declaration to be given at convenient places in
the said locality (the last of the dates of such
publication and the giving of such public notice, being
hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication
(50 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
of the declaration), and such declaration shall state]
the district or other territorial division in which the
land is situate, the purpose for which It is needed, its
approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been
made of the land, the place where such plan may be
inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence
that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a
company, as the case may be; and, after making
such declaration, the [appropriate Government] may
acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing."
The publication of the Notification is required and that
is to be in Official Gazette, newspapers and even in the locality. In
the instant case, declaration was made on 7 th December, 2011 but
it was published in the gazette on 16th December, 2011. If the
date of gazette notification is taken then declaration is after one
year but the relevant date is when the notification was made and
it is on 7th December, 2011. In view of the above, declaration is
not after one year. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
"SH Rangappa versus State of Karnataka & anr", (2002) 1 SCC
538 is relevant on the aforesaid issue. Therein, the same issue
was considered by the Apex court. The relevant paras 8, 9 and 12
of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:
"8. We wish to clarify that the words "publish"
and "from the date of publication of the
notification occurring in provision (ii) to Section
6(1) refer to the publication of the Section 4
notification and have no reference to the
publication of any notification under Section 6.
(51 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
Under Section 6(1), it is only a declaration
which is required to be made, the time limit
being within one year of the publication of the
Section 4 notification. The main purpose for the
issuance of declaration under Section 6 is
provided by sub-section (3), namely, that the
declaration is conclusive evidence that the land
is needed inter alia for a public purpose and
after the making of the declaration the
appropriate Government may acquire the land
in the manner provided by the Act. Sub-section
(2) requires the declaration to be published in
the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers
circulating in the locality in which the land is
situate and in addition thereto the Collector is
also required to cause public notice of the
substance of the declaration to be given in the
convenient places in the said locality.
9. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (2) of
Section 6 does not prescribe any time limit
within which the declaration made under
Section 6(1) is to be published. It is well known
that after an order or declaration is made there
can be a time gap between the making of the
order or a declaration and its publication in the
Official Gazette. Whereas the time limit for the
making of an order is provided under Section
6(1), the legislature advisedly did not provide
for any time limit in respect of the steps
required to be taken under sub-section (2) of
Section 6. If the contention of Mr. G.L. Sanghi,
the learned senior counsel for the appellant is
correct, the effect would be that not only the
declaration would have to be published within
the time prescribed under the proviso to
Section 6(1) but all other steps, like publication
in the daily newspaper and the Collector
causing public notice of the declaration to be
given at a convenient places in the locality,
must also be completed within a period of one
year of Section 4 notification. This could
certainly not be a consequence contemplated
by the legislature. As already observed, the
purpose of Section 6 notification being no give
a final declaration with regard to the need of
the land for public purpose, the interest of the
land owners was sufficiently safeguarded with
the requirement of the making of the
declaration under Section 6(1) within a
prescribed period. It is difficult for us to read
(52 of 54)
[ CW-744/2017]
into sub-section (2) the provisions of the
proviso to Section 6(1) which relate to the time
limit for issuance of the notification under
Section 6(1).
12. Mr. Sanghi also drew our attention tot he
observations of this Court in Sanjeeva Nagar
Medical and Health Employees Co-operative
Housing Society Vs. Mohd. Abdul Bawahab
MANU/SC/0919/1996 : [1996]2SCR308 . While
referring to the various provision of the Act at
page 606, it was observed that "the declaration
should be within one year." Mr. Sanghi
contends that this is a decision of three judges
which we should follows. We are unable to
accept this for the reason that what arose for
consideration before the Court in Senjeeva
Nagar's case was the provision of Section 4 as
amended by the State of A.P. which fixed time
limit of 40 days for giving public notice on the
substance of a notification under Section 4(1).
The Court was called upon in that case to
consider whether a declaration under Section
6(1) was required to be published in a Gazette
within one year of the publication of Section 4
Notification. Therefore, the aforesaid
observation is only an obiter and contrary to
the decision of this Court of a larger Bench in
Khadim Hussain's case which decision has
neither been referred to in the Senjeeva
Nagar's case or in the Krishi Utpadhan Mandi's
case and in Eugenia's case."
As against the aforesaid, no judgment has been cited
by learned counsel for the petitioners.
An argument has further been raised that report under Section 5A was not accompanied with the record. The reply to the writ petition shows that record pertaining to the report was sent to the Government. The petitioners alleged that it should be entire record and not copy of the objections, reply and written (53 of 54) [ CW-744/2017] arguments submitted by the parties. To appreciate the argument, I have gone through Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 and find that what is required to be sent along with report is record of the proceedings held by the Land Acquisition Officer. The proceedings under Section 5A are objections followed by reply and arguments and it has been sent by the respondents. Thus I do not find violation of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 in the instant case. It is also alleged that consideration of report could not have been in one or two days. It is for the reason that after the report dated 02.12.2011, 3rd and 4th December were Saturday and Sunday thus the only available days were 5th and 6th December, 2011. I do not find any substance in the argument. Why report cannot be considered in a day or two has not been clarified.
The last argument is regarding non-consideration of the report by the State. The argument aforesaid has been raised in reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (supra) so as Women Education Trust (supra). Before making a declaration, authorised officer of the Government needs to consider the report. The judicial review, as to what extent mind has been applied, is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Somavanti and Sooraram Pratap Reddy (supra). Section 6(3) makes a presumption and gives conclusive evidence that land is acquired for public purpose. In the instant case, it is for the development of residential scheme. It is after taking into consideration the future (54 of 54) [ CW-744/2017] need of Jaipur City thus is for public purpose. It is, however, stated by the petitioners that vacant land is available but failed to give details, that too, after showing that it would be sufficient for the future need. The allegation to extend benefit to the developers is also for the sake of it as no material has been produced.
In the light of discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. They are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
A copy of this judgment be placed in each connected file.
(MN BHANDARI),J.
bnsharma/frbohra