Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 401 (RAJ)

Abhinav Sharma v. National Engg. Ind. Ltd.

2006-02-06

R.S.CHAUHAN, S.N.JHA

body2006
Honble JHA, CJ.—This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation by an Advocate of this Court seeking direction upon the respondents to construct a super multi specialty hospital cum research centre on the land which was allotted to National Engineering Industries Ltd. (NEI for short), Respondent No. 1 herein, and for taking over possession of the said land from it. The petitioner also seeks a direction upon NEI Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs. 390 crores equivalent to the present market price of the land, to be and utilized for construction of the hospital. (2). After highlighting the necessity of developing suitable medicare infrastructure at Jaipur—pointing out inadequacies of the medical facilities available in the Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, the petitioner has stated that 61.41 acres land equivalent to 100 bighas was allowed to the NEI by way of exemption under Section 22(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Ceiling Act for short) under notifications dated 11.12.1995 and 16.1.1997 for the purpose of establishing a super specialty hospital cum research centre in collaboration with the University of Illinois, Chicago (USA). The notifications contemplated that the construction work would be completed within a period of three years of sanction of the plan by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), among other things. Curiously, when the lease-deed came to be executed between JDA and the representatives of NEI on 31.3.2003 reference was made to construction of a school building and medical college, besides hospital. Prior to the execution of the lease- deed, allotment order had been issued by the JDA with the permission of the State Government with respect of 213 bighas 14 biswas land vide allotment order dated 30.10.2000 for token consideration or rupee one as Najrana. The said allotment order also referred to establishment of high school and residential complex, besides hospital, medical college. According to the petitioner, the change of purpose by the aforesaid allotment order/lease was for oblique reasons to cause undue advantage to the respondents. In any view, according to the petitioner, the respondents having failed to commence, much-less complete, construction of the hospital as per the stipulations of the exemption notifications dated 11.12.1995 and 16.1.1997 they have forfeited their right to remain in possession of the land. (3). NEI and JDA have filed their separate reply. In any view, according to the petitioner, the respondents having failed to commence, much-less complete, construction of the hospital as per the stipulations of the exemption notifications dated 11.12.1995 and 16.1.1997 they have forfeited their right to remain in possession of the land. (3). NEI and JDA have filed their separate reply. In its reply NEI has stated that it had purchased 222 bighas 17 biswas land of Khasra Nos. 271, 331, 333 to 335 of village Gopalpura, tehsil Sanganer, district Jaipur under four sale-deeds dated 23.5.1964, 28.4.1965 and 25.4.1967 and thus became khatedar in possession of the land. In course of time 6 bighas 6 biswas land of Khasra No. 271 came to be encroached upon, but it remained in possession of 216 bighas 11 biswas of land. On 8/10.10.1979, acquisition proceeding was initiated by the then Urban Improvement Trust under Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act followed by notification dated 7.3.1984 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 20.4.1984. However, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the acquisition proceeding lapsed with the passage of time. In this back-ground on representation, by notifications dated 11.12.1995 and 16.1.1997 land aggregating 61.94 acres was allowed to be retained by it (NEI) by way of exemption under Section 22(2) of the Ceiling Act. Following the said notifications, it took steps for conversion of agricultural land and deposited conversion charge of Rs. 16,86,248. At this stage, the JDA, took a stand that the land had vested in the Government from 20.4.1984, the date of publication of the notification under Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act in the official gazette, and refused to consider the plan for medical college and hospital. To avoid litigation, it approached the Government and the JDA for allotment of land. Accepting the request by order dated 30.10.2000 the land in question was allotted to it. On 28.7.2001 allotment order was amended. The formal lease-deed came to be executed on 31.3.2003. (4). NEI, further, has denied the petitioners allegation that the land is sought to be utilized for the purpose of construction of school alone. According to it, the school building is being constructed on the basis of duly approved plan sanctioned by the JDA. The delay in construction of the hospital building was on account of interim orders passed by the Court. According to it, the school building is being constructed on the basis of duly approved plan sanctioned by the JDA. The delay in construction of the hospital building was on account of interim orders passed by the Court. It has also made averments about the credentials of Birla Centre for Medical Research and the Rukmani Birla Educational Institute. (5). The JDA in its reply has stated that the respondent was allowed 215 bighas and odd land and the subject matter of the notifications dated 11.12.1995 and 16.1.1997 viz. 61.41 acres land is only part of the total land and the case projected by the petitioner that entire 215 bighas land was allotted to the respondent for establishing hospital is not correct. JDA has also stated, like NEI, that construction of hospital was stopped pursuant to the interim order of this Court. After interim order was modified (by order dated 6.1.2006), the construction work again commenced. JDA has also stated that the period mentioned in the notifications dated 11.12.1995 and 16.1.1997 is to be reckoned from the date of approval of the plan by the JDA. Similarly, the leased-deed also proves for a time frame which has not ended. (6). It is relevant to mention here that as per Para 7 of the lease-deed the construction of school and hospital is to commence within one year of the execution of the lease-deed and completed within three years. Thereafter, in the second phase, construction of medical college is to be completed within next three years, within next three years thereafter the provisions are to be made for residential infra-structure for the school hospital and medical college. The lease-deed, as seen above, was executed on 31.3.2003 and the period of three years for completion of construction is yet to expire. Meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim order. The grievance of the petitioner, would thus appeal to be pre-mature. Neither allotment order nor lease-deed contemplates that the hospital building would be constructed first and thereafter construction work of school building would commence. All that it says is that construction would commence within one year and be completed within three years. (7). The grievance of the petitioner, would thus appeal to be pre-mature. Neither allotment order nor lease-deed contemplates that the hospital building would be constructed first and thereafter construction work of school building would commence. All that it says is that construction would commence within one year and be completed within three years. (7). That apart, as indicated above, thrust of the petitioners case is that the construction of the school building is a deviation from the purpose for which the respondent was allowed exemption to retain possession over the land under Section 22(2) of the Ceiling Act which is not the whole truth. It is true that the respondent was allowed exemption of 61.94 acres equivalent to 100 bighas of land for the purpose of establishing super specialty hospital and research centre. But at the instance of the JDA on the premise that the land stood vested in the State by virtue of the provisions of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act, allotment order was issued with the sanction of the State Government with respect to 213 bighas and 14 biswas land. The grievance of the petitioner, it would appear, rests on misconception of facts and in these premises it is not possible to make any interference as prayed for. (8). In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.