JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is a Khatedar tenant of agriculture land situated in village Gadepan Tehsli Digod district Kota, is aggrieved because of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act') being notification No. P. 4 (50) Udyog (i) 88 dated 15-11-89 ; Annexure-2). 2. A notification had earlier been issued under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land for M/s Aravali Fertilizers Limited, which company had decided to instal a fertilizer factory in village Gadepan. The aforesaid company has subsequently changed its name to Chambal Fertilizers and Chemical Limited and first ground of challenge of notification by the petitioner is that since after change in the name of the company, a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act ought to have been issued as according to Section 44 of the Act except for the purpose mentioned in Section 40 (i)(a) of the Act, no land can be acquired for a private company. Also because earlier notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be lapsed when the said company lost its original character. The petitioner's second grievance is that he has several fruit trees standing on the land which is sought to be acquired and the land and these trees are only source of his livelihood. It has taken several years to grow and yield fruits. In case his land is acquired, he would be forced to starve. His contention is that fruit trees would be cut and that is a national loss and for that reason also the notification should be quashed. His third ground of challenge is that establishment of the fertilizer factory would effect the ecology and environment of the area. The smoke and filth of the factory will pollute the air as well as the water and would endanger the life of villagers and cattle. 3. The petition has been contested by the respondents and it is submitted that necessary changes have been made in the memorandum and Article of Association consequent to the change in name and fresh certificate of the corporation issued by Registrar of Companies. 3. The petition has been contested by the respondents and it is submitted that necessary changes have been made in the memorandum and Article of Association consequent to the change in name and fresh certificate of the corporation issued by Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that earlier the factory was to be established in Sawai Madhopur and so it was given the name of Aravali Fertilizers but when it was decided to be shifted to Kota, the name was accordingly changed and kept after Chambal hence in substance it is the same industry with the same Board of Directors and same office. Hence, no notice was required to be issued afresh under Section 4 of the Act. 4. Regarding second ground, it is submitted that petitioner is being paid compensation for land and has no right to insist to be on land. It is submitted that only those trees would be cut which are absolutely necessary and there is no national loss as company will also grow vegetation. Regarding environment and ecology, it is submitted that all rules about checking pollution would be followed and clearance has already been obtained from relevant authorities. 5. There is force in the arguments of the respondents about the first point but for the change in the name, the entire memorandum and Articles of Association continues to be the same and in substance there is no change in character of the company. Hence, the petitioner cannot succeed on this count. 6. Regarding second point about the petitioner's losing his only source of/livelihood, it may be observed that there is much substance in what is submitted. When the land is taken, with which he is not only emotionally and physically attached but it was only source of livelihood, he first deserves to be rehabilitated and liquid money can hardly rehabilitate one. He must get an alternative land, may not be as big or as good which is acquired but which must cater to his needs. The petitioner though is entitled to compensation in lieu of the land acquired.it may yet be added that due regard must be given to Section 23 of the Act and it would be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner is allotted an alternate land besides compensation in cash for developing the land so that he can earn his livelihood. It has been held in Gadigeppa Mahadevappa Chikkumbi v. State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1990 Karnataka 2) as under:- "One's rights and liberties are regarded as individual property. They are perceived as even more cardinal than the individual property in material things. Human right to live has a special meaning to a developing society in which pre-dominant majority lives in villages below the poverty line. Constitution assures to the common man adequate means oi livelihood and right to pursue his avocation. Therefore, where by acquisition of land, the poor agriculturist was deprived of his sole means of livelihood as he was rendered landless and his right to carry on his occupation was also taken away, such acquisition cannot be sustained." I am in total agreement with the view expressed in above case but would not like to go further in this case because land of more than 60 persons have been acquired in this case & all of them have already handed over the possession and taken compensation and further that petitioner is the only person left who is still in possession of his land. It is because of him that work of the factory could not commence so far which is meant for larger social interest. In view of this matter though there is force in second contention also, yet this court would like to observe hopefully that so far as possible the Land Acquisition Officer should see that petitioner gets an alternative land also for rehabilitation. 7. Regarding the third point about the environmental pollution, suffice it to say that before establishing the industry in Kota, it was sought to be established at Sawai Madhopur. It was on the advice of the environment experts and the Pollution Board that it was shifted from there and was permitted to be located at Kota. The Government of India has already completed the formalities and clearance has been given. This is subject to confirming the standards prescribed by the Central/State Pollution Control Board and necessary directions are incorporated in office memorandum dated 15th Nov., 1988 (Annexure R/5). Thus, there is no substance in this argument also. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed without any order as to costs. Thus, there is no substance in this argument also. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed without any order as to costs. Land Acquisition Officer is directed to finalise the case of the petitioner about compensation and alternate land, as expeditiously as possible, say not later than four months.Petition Dismissed. *******