JUDGMENT 1. 1. The acquisition proceedings have been challenged by both the petitioners on common facts and law relation to the notifications issued under section 4 and 6 respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ' Act of 1894') for establishment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as well as violation of Section 5A of Act of 1894 before issuance of the notifications under section 6 of the Act of 1894. One notifications under section 4 of the Act of 1894 were issued on 20.12.2005 and two notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 were issued on 29.4.2006 and 30.10.2006. Further common facts of the suitability of the acquisition of Abadi land were involved in both the cases. Therefore, both the cases have been heard together and are being decided together. 2. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention that in Gautam Estates, its land falls within the actual requirement of SEZ whereas the land/fully developed farm houses of Nandan Greens is surplus to the actual requirement of SEZ which is sought to be acquired for grant of the same for allotment to expropriated owners (Khatedars) but the respondents have submitted that the said land is not surplus land as the same is required for allotment to the expropriated owner which is also a public purpose. 3. The parties have urged legal issues in regard to Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and the additional facts regarding the nature of the land and building constructed thereon and their requirement, therefore, facts of the writ petition, reply along with additional affidavit are being referred and dealt with hereunder separately. 4. 3. The parties have urged legal issues in regard to Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and the additional facts regarding the nature of the land and building constructed thereon and their requirement, therefore, facts of the writ petition, reply along with additional affidavit are being referred and dealt with hereunder separately. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are owners of Abadi and agricultural details whereof has been mentioned in para 3 which is as follows: xzke usoVk rglhy lkaxkusj dh Hkwfe dk fooj.k dz0la0 [kljk uEcjku dqy jdck laifjorZu vkns'k fnukad 90 ch gsrq vkosfnr {ks=Qy gS0es0 Hkw&Lokeh dk uke 1 186] 187] 183@2568] 18@2502] 189@2601] 189] 190] 191] 248] 247] 252] 255 7-76 lEiw.kZ 04@11@92 && xkSre ,VsVl izkbZosV fyfeVsM 2 1113@2602] 1023] 1024] 1027] 1028] 1118] 1113@2605] 1088] 1089] 1030] 1031] 1113@2606 6-77 lEiw.kZ 14-7-93 24-8-93 && eh.kk dkWyksuh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fyfeVsM t;iqj 3 1121 0-11 lEiw.kZ 24-8-93 && eh.kk dkWyksuh x`0 fu0l0l0fy0 fpjath yky [kSrku pUnuk] ruq [ksrku 4 1101] 1104] 1099] 1103@2608] 275] 276] 277 5-12 lEiw.kZ && 5-12 Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM 5 1102] 1079] 1084] 1091] 1093] 1094 5-28 1@3 && 1-7600 Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM 6 100] 101] 102] 103] 104] 105] 206] 207] 208] 215] 218] 219] 220] 1068] 1069] 1074 4-39 1@4 && 1-0975 Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM 7 209] 210] 211] 212] 213] 216] 217] 1064] 1065] 1066] 1067 3-10 1@2 && 1-550 Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM 8 208] 215] 1068] 1069] 1074 1-04 1@4 && 0-260 xkSjo tSu 9 115] 116] 117] 118] 19] 120] 123] 124] 125] 126] 127] 128] 129] 135] 136] 137] 138] 139] 140] 141] 142] 143] 144 8-45 1@3 && 2-8167 xkSre ,LVsVl izkbZosV 10 861] 862] 863] 864] 865] 866] 867] 872] 873] 874] 875] 876] 877] 878] 879] 880] 881] 882] 883] 884] 885] 886] 887] 888] 889] 890] 891] 892] 893] 894] 895] 896] 897] 898] 899] 900] 901] 902] 1020] 1021] 1022] 1025] 1026] 1032] 1033] 1116] 1117] 1122] 1123] 1124] 1125] 1126] 1127] 1128] 1129] 1130] 1131] 1132] 1133] 1134] 1136] 1137] 1138] 1139] 1140] 1141] 1142] 1143] 1220] 1221] 1222] 1223 24-62 2@5 && 9-8480 xkSre ,LVsVl izkbZosV fyfeVsM Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM 11 1078] 1095] 1096] 1097] 1098] 1092@2676 3-04 lEiw.kZ && 3-0400 xkSjo tSu iq= Jh lqjs'k tSu 12 99] 106] 107] 108] 196 2-53 lEiw.kZ && 2-5300 Jherh izse tSu iRuh Jh lqjs'k tSu 5. The petitioners started development over the land by framing a residential scheme and submitted the same to Gram Panchayat for approval. The petitioners started laying down roads, demarcations and boundary walls over the land for development. The Gram Panchayat however restrained the petitioners from doing any further activity till the plans are approved. The petitioners immediately stopped the work, but the Gram Panchayat did not pass any order for approval of the plans and in the meantime,the area came to be vested with the JDA. 6. The village Nevta was included in the JDA limits and the bye laws of JDA became applicable on the petitioners land as per the provisions of JDA Act. The Sector Plan was not prepared by JDA for village Nevta as such the petitioners could not applied for approval of scheme to JDA. However, recently, JDA without there being any sector plan started issuing NOC and conversion orders under section 90-B of the Act, the petitioners 1 to 8 coming to know about the said fact entered into an understanding with petitioners no.9 for development of a residential colony in collaboration and applied for NOC on 18.5.2005 through petitioners No.9 and petitioners No.1 to 8 applied for conversion under section 90-B on 29.11.2005. 7. On 15th June, 2005 a proposal was drawn by Deputy Commissioner-II, JDA for acquisition of 13,000 Bighas land between Ajmer Road and Sanganer at the behest of some higher officer as there was no decision by JDA under section 39(1) for making any scheme like SEZ special economic zone. The proposal of the acquisition was forwarded on the same day by the Deputy Commissioner to Secretary, JDA. The Secretary, JDA pointed out that lands for which action under section 90-B have been taken would be required to be regularised. It was also pointed that the lands could be in the name of JDA if 90-B order has been passed or in the name of Khatedar if 90-B order is yet to be passed. Therefore, in the proposal such lands, which are required to be regularised should be identified. The proposal of the Secretary, JDA was approved by the Commissioner on 16th of June, 2005. Therefore, in the proposal such lands, which are required to be regularised should be identified. The proposal of the Secretary, JDA was approved by the Commissioner on 16th of June, 2005. On 16th June, 2005 the Additional Commissioner (West) JDA for this first time mentioned in the file that the purpose of acquisition would be for IT, Biotech city and Knowledge City and forwarded the file to Deputy Commissioner-11, JDA. It is further stated in the writ petition that even though acquisition proceedings were initiated but till then the JDA and its officers were not knowing the purpose of acquisition. The news about the proposed acquisition of land and SEZ was issued on 14.6.2005 and published on 15.6.2005 in Dainik Bhasker, whereas the proposal of acquisition was prepared on 16.6.2005, which shows that the proposals were being prepared without any application of mind and on predetermined manner due to extraneous reasons. 8. On 16th of June, 2005 the Deputy Commissioner-11 (for short DC) as per directions of the Secretary para 18/N prepared noting that data has been prepared accurately and the lands under Section 90-B proceedings have been identified and note has been appended to the corresponding Khasra numbers. 9. The DC-11 forwarded the file to AC (West) on the same day. The AC (West) had pointed out that decision as per 39(1) for the acquisition and preparing of scheme has to be taken by the authority and forwarded the file on the same day to the A.C.(West). 10. On 16th June,2005 itself Secretary, JDA noted that as per directions proposal for acquisition has been prepared though proposed scheme has not been approved under section 39(1) which is to be generally done first before acquisition, however due to urgency of acquisition proceedings as directed the proposal is being sent to Commissioner before sending to the Government and forwarded the file to the Commissioner, JDA. The noting of Secretary,JDA are as follows: "On the basis of directions given the proposals have been prepared for moving it to Govt. Though we have not yet notified the proposed schemes under section 39 (1), this has to be generally done first before moving for acquisition. The noting of Secretary,JDA are as follows: "On the basis of directions given the proposals have been prepared for moving it to Govt. Though we have not yet notified the proposed schemes under section 39 (1), this has to be generally done first before moving for acquisition. Since D.S.U.D. Has pointed out so in the discussion, and action under section 39(1) can take time and then that has to be submitted to authority, due to urgency of the starting of acquisition proceedings as directed, the covering letter mentions that the action under section 39 (1) is being taken and also the fact of changing the land use for the proposed schemes. Thus the proposal and covering letter prepared as per direction is being submitted for approval before sending to Govt. Sd/- 16.6." 11. On 16th June, 2005, Commissioner,JDA sent the file and mentioned that the proposal with covering letter be issued. The Secretary, JDA on 16th June, 2005 issued the letter of proposed acquisition of land to the Government along with the proposal. The said proposal was pending with the State Government for acquisition, however, para 31/N was drawn on 18th July, 2005 by DC-11,JDA. The DC pointed out that earlier the alignment of Ring Road was not fixed, however, Commissioner has directed that the proposal for SEZ should be adjacent to Ring Road according to desire of Mahindra City and others and now because the alignment of ring road has been fixed. Therefore, the proposal, which was sent along with plan needs to be recalled. The DC forwarded the file with the said notings to AC (W). 12. On the same day i.e. on 18th July, 2005 the said notings were approved by the AC(W), Secretary and JDC. 13. On 18th July, 2005 itself the file of the acquisition proposal was brought back by the DC- 11 personally. 14. The DC-11 after getting the acquisition proposals back from the State Govt. on the same day i.e. 18th July, 2005 recorded in para 32 to 36/N that Omax Group has applied for NOC to purchase land in villages Sarangpura, Bhamboriya, Bagru Khurdand Thikariya measuring 877 bigha. The Omax Group could not be given NOC because of the stay of the State Government and Omax now has represented that they have already purchased 500 Bigha and, therefore, the proposed 877 bigha be dropped from the acquisition. The Omax Group could not be given NOC because of the stay of the State Government and Omax now has represented that they have already purchased 500 Bigha and, therefore, the proposed 877 bigha be dropped from the acquisition. It was also pointed out that land proposed for SEZ was around 12000 bigha out of which 4800 bigha has been demanded and Omax is only developing colony in 877 bigha land, hence forwarded the representation for consideration and decision for keeping Omax land out of acquisition to higher authorities. 15. There was no mention of Ring Road nor changing the proposed area and the entire exercise was done only to exclude the lands of OMAX. On 18th July, 2005 the proposal for acquisition was dropped and the file was signed on the same day by JDC, Secretary, Minister, AC (W) and DC-11 and NOC was issued to Omax on 19th July, 2005. 16. Section 4 notification was issued on 20th December, 2005 and published on 22nd December, 2005 in gazette notification. As per the notification the lands of Villages Jhai, Bhamboria, Bagru Khurd, Tilawas, Kalwara, Khatwara, Nevata, Narsinghpura Dadia and Palariparsa Tehsil Sanganer were proposed for special economic zone required by JDA. 17. It is further stated that they were shocked to know that their lands have been included in SEZ and filed objections on 20.1.2006 which were recorded in receipt register on 25.1.2006 i.e. within 30 days of the publication of Section 4 (1) notification and submitted that the lands belonging to the petitioners are mainly recorded as residential land, which were duly converted long back and the petitioners have applied for conversion under Section 90-B for the remaining agricultural lands and the applications are under process and the petitioners' land should be excluded from the acquisition. It was also stated that lands of influential persons like Omax company etc. have been excluded from the acquisition, which is highly discriminatory in nature. It was also mentioned by the petitioners that the lands of the Omax company were converted to residential after the proposal was sent by the JDA to the State Government. It is important to state here that the lands belonging to the Omax company falls in the villages which are under acquisition although their lands have been excluded. It was also mentioned by the petitioners that the lands of the Omax company were converted to residential after the proposal was sent by the JDA to the State Government. It is important to state here that the lands belonging to the Omax company falls in the villages which are under acquisition although their lands have been excluded. The petitioners also questioned the policy of the State Government in allotting 25% developed land in lieu of compensation as the land of the petitioners was residential land and therefore, sought clarification whether the land of the petitioners would be treated as agricultural land. The petitioners also submitted that its land is residential and developed and, therefore, the same may be excluded from acquisition. 18. On 25th April, 2006 the petitioners were present before the Land Acquisition Officer and he was given the copy of reply filed by Jaipur Development Authority. The Land Acquisition Officer noted in its proceedings that the relevant Jamabandi is filed by objectors have been placed in their respective files and further noted that the file be placed for submitting report under Section 5-A. It is stated in the writ petition that no date was given to the petitioners nor any notice was served nor any date was fixed for hearing under Section 5-A by the Land Acquisition Officer. 19. The JDA in its reply before the Land Acquisition Officer stated that the petitioners has not submitted any proof whether the land is Abadi or not whereas the petitioner stated in the writ petition that the Land Acquisition Officer without considering material on record i.e. Zamabandies filed by the petitioners considered the objections filed by petitioners in mechanical manner. 20. The Land Acquisition Officer without hearing the petitioners and any of its representatives or without giving any notice of hearing on 27th April, 2006 all of sudden contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act regarding personal hearing under Section 5A disposed of the objections and incorporated in the report under Section 5-A which was forwarded to the State Government along with decision on the same day i.e. 27th April, 2006. 21. That DS-II on the same day on 27th April, 2006 also reiterated the same language used by ALR in its report and recommended for issuing Section 6 notification. The DS-II thereafter forwarded the file to the Principal Secretary, UDH on the same date. 22. 21. That DS-II on the same day on 27th April, 2006 also reiterated the same language used by ALR in its report and recommended for issuing Section 6 notification. The DS-II thereafter forwarded the file to the Principal Secretary, UDH on the same date. 22. As is clear from the above the Principal Secretary, UDH on the same day considered the file and recommended to exclude the land of Nandan Green Houses Limited and forwarded the file for issuing Section 6 notification. 23. That immediately on the same day on 29th April, 2006 notification under Section 6 was issued by the State Government whereby the lands belonging to the petitioners were also included in the declaration, whereas the land of Nandan Greens were excluded. 24. It is also stated that the land in acquisition is the surplus requirement to the actual requirement for SEZ, as per the initial proposal of the respondent Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioners have deposited conversion charges of the agricultural land and part of the land has already been converted and is in the process of development for the residential use. 25. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner purchased 16.1 Hectare uncultivated land from the erstwhile owner situated in Village Bagru Khurd, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. The petitioner after purchasing the land, got the same recorded in its name in the revenue record except Khasra No.716 and 718. Part of the land of Khasras No.703, 704, 713, 716, and 717 measuring 1900 Sq. Meters was converted for commercial use by the SDO, Jaipur vide its order dated 7.6.1997. The other part of the land of Khasras No. 677, 678,680, 681, 698, 699,700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 709, 714, 715, 716, 718, 719, 720 and 721 measuring 4000 Sq.Meters was converted by the SDO, Jaipur vide its order dated 18.11.1997, for residential use. On 22.3.1998 and 23.3.1999, the petitioner sold part of the land in Khasras No.703, 704, 713, 716 and 717 with partly constructed club houses to SWESS Club and Retreat Pvt. Ltd.- a highly modernised club and farm house and small farm houses were developed by the petitioner and the said Swess Club and Retreat Pvt.Ltd. on the aforesaid land and the petitioner sold farm and clubhouse to the various persons much before the start of acquisition. 26. 26. On 25.7.2003, Rajasthan Special Economic Zone Development Act, 2003 came into force. The State Government intended to establish Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for which 300 Acres of land was required on the Ajmer Road, Jaipur. The State of Rajasthan entered into an agreement with M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra for development of special economic zone. On 4.7.2005, a Memo of Understanding arrived at between the parties - M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra and the State of Rajasthan for establishment of SEZ. On 13.10.2005, the JDA recommended to the State Government for conversion of land of Nandan Green Houses Ltd. from agriculture to residential. 27. On 2.12.2005, a letter was written by the JDA to the State Government for acquisition of land of nine villages under section 45 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (in short 'the JDA Act'). On 20.12.2005, a notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued for acquisition of the land of nine villages for the purpose of SEZ and in this notification, land of the petitioner known as Nandan Green Houses Ltd. was also included. On 22.12.2005, the land of Nandan Green Houses Ltd. was converted by the JDA for residential purpose. On inviting objections under section 5A of the Act of 1894, the petitioner submitted objection under section 5A of the Act of 1894 before the Land Acquisition Officer. JDA submitted its reply before the Land Acquisition Officer and it was admitted by it that those lands which are entered as Abadi is not subject matter of acquisition and only those lands which are not recorded as Abadi in the record available with the JDA has been included in the notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894. On 27.4.2006, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted its report and recommended that it is not feasible to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purpose of SEZ. He also observed that in case of acquisition, compensation could run in Crores. The report of the Land Acquisition Officer was considered at various levels by the State Government. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department (UDH) observed that it was not proper to issue notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 with regard to the land of the petitioner and ultimately when the notification dated 29.4.2006 was issued, the land of the petitioner except Khasra No.716 and 718, was not included. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department (UDH) observed that it was not proper to issue notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 with regard to the land of the petitioner and ultimately when the notification dated 29.4.2006 was issued, the land of the petitioner except Khasra No.716 and 718, was not included. On 19.5.2006 the JDA approved the building plan of Nandan Green Houses Ltd. On 26.6.2006, the JDA sent the factual report to the Principal Secretary, UDH admitting that the land of Nandan Green Houses Ltd. is out of the area required for development of SEZ by the RIICO and this land is in an area which is required to be given to the Khatedar by way of compensation. The State Government again issued notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 of the some more land on 3.7.2006. This land does not include the land of the petitioner. 28. The exclusion of the land of Nandan Green Houses Ltd. in the notification dated 29.4.2006 is said to be highlighted by the Media on the issue of discrimination. It is further stated in the writ petition that on account of the said issue, the State Government has issued notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 wherein the land of the petitioner first notified under section 4 of the Act of 1894 has been included. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the notifications dated 30.12.2005, 29.4.2006 and 30.10.2006. It is stated in the writ petition that acquisition of the developed land of Nandan Green Houses Ltd. which has been sold also, is contrary to the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Act of 1894, mala fide, arbitrary,without application of mind, colourable exercise of power with the last submission that the rehabilitation of the expropriated owner by dislodging the successor in title will not amount to rehabilitation etc. and the same is against the public policy. 29. and the same is against the public policy. 29. The respondents in their reply as well as in the additional affidavit and counter affidavit made it clear that the establishment of SEZ is in public interest and the three notifications - issued under section 4 on 20.12.2005, and two notifications issued under section 6 on 29.4.2006 and 30.10.2006 are in public interest and the procedure of the Act of 1894, Rajasthan Special Economic Zone Development Act, 2003 as well as Central Enactment - Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 have been followed. They have also made it clear that at the proposal of the JDA, the land was acquired for handing it over the RIICO for the establishment of SEZ and after acquisition, possession of the same was handed over to M/s. Mahindra World City in respect of which MOU as well as agreement were executed between the parties. The respondents have also justified their action of requirement of the land more than the actual requirement for establishment of the SEZ by stating that the rehabilitation of the expropriated owner is also in public interest. 30. On legal aspect, it is stated in the writ petition that the impugned notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 so far as they relate to the land in question are violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. In case of Gautam Estates, it has been specifically submitted that no notice of personal hearing under section 5A of the Act of 1894 was given to them whereas in the case of Nandan Green, it was submitted that their case was recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer for de-acquisition and the same was accepted by the respondents while excluding the land at the time of issuing the first notification dated 29.4.2006 but separate notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was exclusively issued for its land on 30.10.2006.The notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 for surplus land have been issued mala fide, arbitrarily and without application of mind while exercising the power in colourable manner to give benefit to the Company as well as expropriated owner by rehabilitating them at the cost of the person interested. The petitioner company/successor in title of the petitioner company - are still covered by the definition of 'person interested' on account of residence as well as management and development of the land and construction thereon. 31. Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that challenge to the notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 is only to the extent that the land is not required for public purpose, therefore, the notification is liable to be quashed being violative of the mandatory satisfaction of the State Government that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose (or for a Company). In case of Gautam Estates, no notice of personal hearing under section 5A of the Act of 1894 was given. However, in case of Nandan Green, although the case was recommended for de-acquisition but the same was suddenly included by issuing separate exclusive notification dated 30.10.2006. Thus, Section 5A of the Act of 1894 has not been complied with in both the cases. 32. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioners in Nandan Greens is that the acquisition of the developed land / land which has already been converted and is in the process of development without actual requirement for SEZ is not in public interest. Having recommended and accepted the non-inclusion of the land of Nandan Green in the first notification issued under section 6 on 29.4.2006 than inclusion of same under pressure of media in successive notification issued under section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 30.10.2006 was not justified and the said inclusion is not only mala fide and arbitrary but the same amounts to colourable exercise of power also. It has further been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the rehabilitation of the expropriated owner at the cost of successor in title cannot be said to be in public interest. Dislodging the person already residing/doing commercial activities or are in the process of constructing their houses will not be covered by 'rehabilitation'. To rehabilitate the expropriated Khatedar by acquiring the land of other Khatedar/owner is against the public policy. The same is contrary to the rehabilitation policy of 2004 framed by the Government of India and clarified in 2007. 33. In support of the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the petitioner cited the following judgments: 1. To rehabilitate the expropriated Khatedar by acquiring the land of other Khatedar/owner is against the public policy. The same is contrary to the rehabilitation policy of 2004 framed by the Government of India and clarified in 2007. 33. In support of the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the petitioner cited the following judgments: 1. Hamabai Framjee V. Secretary of State for India ( AIR 1914 PC 20 ) 2. The State of Bihar V. Sir Kameshwar Singh ( AIR 1952 Supreme Court 252) . 3. Jaipur Development Authority V.Radhey Shyam and others (1994) 4 SCC 370 ). 4. Secretary, J.D.A. V. Daulat Mal Jain and others (1997) 1 SCC 35 ) . 5. Narpat Singh V. JDA (2002) 4 SCC 666 . 6. The State of M.P. and others V. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and others ( AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1593) . 7. State of Gujarat V. Musamigan Imam Haider Bux Razvi and another ( (1976) 3 SCC 536 ) . 8. Raghunath and others V. State of Maharashtra and others (1988) 3 SCC 294 . 9. Bastyan Jao Patil V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,Thana (1970 Bombay Law Reporter 648) . 10. Pratibha Nema and others V. State of MP and others (2003) 10 SCC 626 ) = AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3140. 11. Devinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others (2007 AIR SCW 6692) . 34. Mr.Anil Mehta, appearing for the petitioner in Gautam Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (SBCWP No.6898/2006) has made the following additional submissions: (i)That as per Section 45 of the JDA Act, the JDA is required to send requisition for acquisition of land required for project or scheme. The authority is defined under section 3 and 4 of the JDA Act. No decision was taken by the authority to acquire land or by the executive committee to whom powers have been delegated by the authority for making request to State Government for acquisition. (ii)As per the notification land under acquisition is required for the purpose of SEZ by JDA but there is no project or scheme framed by the JDA for development of SEZ. In fact, the land is required by the RIICO for alloting to Mahindra World City (A company) and the said purpose is not disclosed in the notification. Therefore, the land is not required by the JDA and it is a colourable exercise of power. In fact, the land is required by the RIICO for alloting to Mahindra World City (A company) and the said purpose is not disclosed in the notification. Therefore, the land is not required by the JDA and it is a colourable exercise of power. His further submission is that the land of influential group like OMAXE City etc. has been excluded from the acquisition and NOC granted which is also mala fide and discriminatory. (iii)No scheme has been framed by the JDA as per Section 39 of the JDA Act. As per Section 4 notification the land to be acquired is required for the need of the JDA. Hence, framing of scheme is necessary prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings. In the present case,no scheme has been framed and the acquisition proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on State of Punjab V. Sanjeet Singh (2007) 6 SCC 292 and Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti V. State. (iv)As per the Cabinet decision only land needed for development of SEZ was required to be acquired but the Secretary, JDA contrary to the Cabinet decision sent proposal for acquisition of 5600 Bighas of land (approximately). The actual requirement of the land for SEZ was 2500 Acres and the JDA has already handed over Government land measuring 1050 Acres to RIICO. The need to acquire land was of 1450 Acres only, however, with mala fide intentions, excess land has been acquired for compensation to the Khatedar tenants whose land is under acquisition. The policy of the State Government to allot land in lieu of compensation is illegal and opposed to public policy and therefore the acquisition is void. The fact of allotting land in lieu of compensation was never made public and disclosed in the notification. His further submission is that the land acquired cannot be awarded to the awardees and can only be used for the public purpose for which it is acquired. In this connection, he has placed reliance on D.M.Jain V. State of Rajasthan (1997) 1 SCC 35 and Narpat Singh V.State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 660). His further submission is that the land acquired cannot be awarded to the awardees and can only be used for the public purpose for which it is acquired. In this connection, he has placed reliance on D.M.Jain V. State of Rajasthan (1997) 1 SCC 35 and Narpat Singh V.State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 660). (v)That the respondents relying on the National Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy, 2007 cannot acquire excess land for rehabilitation and resettlement for the reason that the notification under challenge was issued in the year 2005 and at the relevant time the said policy was not in force and in absence of power the initiation of acquisition proceedings for excess land was illegal and without jurisdiction. (vi)No opportunity of hearing was granted under Section 5A to the petitioner. (vii)Appointment of Land Acquisition Officer was illegal. (viii)In the present case acquisition for JDA was colourable exercise of power in fact the land was acquired for Mahindra World City a company registered under the Companies Act and the acquisition should have been done as per Chapter-7 of the Act of 1894. 35. Submission of counsel for the respondents is that establishment of SEZ is of national public importance for various reasons and he has elaborated the benefits which the State of Rajasthan would have from the establishment of SEZ, which are as follows: (i) The Jaipur SEZ would bring in investments of more than 2 Billion US dollars into the State of Rajasthan and is likely to generate direct employment for more than 1 lakh persons by the year 2012. (ii) The Jaipur SEZ will be comparable to any of the best operational SEZ globally and will offer multiple options to prospective companies. (iii) Several renowned companies such as Infosys, Wipro and Naggaro Software have already signed MOUs (construction underway) with the Mahindra Group to develop their units within the Jaipur SEZ. Significant employment will be generated due to the presence of such companies within the State of Rajasthan. (iv) The Jaipur SEZ will provide the State of Rajasthan and the entire northern region a platform for future development and will attract global companies to set up base in Jaipur. (v) Infosys has already agreed to invest Rs. 250 Crores bringing in an expected employment for 35,000 people, while Wipro has agreed to invest Rs. 100 Crores bringing in expected employment for 24,000 people. (v) Infosys has already agreed to invest Rs. 250 Crores bringing in an expected employment for 35,000 people, while Wipro has agreed to invest Rs. 100 Crores bringing in expected employment for 24,000 people. (vi) The Jaipur SEZ is being developed as a state of the art business destination for Information Technology Companies (IT)/ITES initially as Phase I which shall be expanded into a multi product SEZ upon acquisition of balance contiguous land. (vii)In the next phase of development, the Jaipur SEZ proposes to offer world class facilities for industries from various sectors such as auto ancillary, apparel/textiles, handicrafts, gems and jewellery etc. The Jaipur SEZ would also provide state of the art logistic facilities and will have an inland container depot and warehousing facilities. The Jaipur SEZ will be comparable to any of the best operational SEZ globally and will offer multiple options to prospective companies. 36. At the outset, the respondents have raised two preliminary objections - (i) that the petitioners who have transferred their land have no locus standi to file the present writ petition being not 'person aggrieved' nor 'person interested' and (ii) the issue of 'public purpose' is covered by the issue of 'public importance' and 'public interest' which has been decided in favour of the State Government by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Lal Sharma (supra). It is appropriate to mention here that one of the submissions of counsel for the petitioners on merit is that the notifications have been issued in wrong names, therefore, the same are illegal but when confronted with the issue that the names of the successor owners are not in the revenue record, as existed on the date of notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, they have given up this issue but the State Government still insists that the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present writ petition be decided. On the issue of locus standi, some of the judgments have been cited by the respondents which will be dealt with separately. On the issue of locus standi, some of the judgments have been cited by the respondents which will be dealt with separately. However, the respondents have placed strong reliance on the issue of public importance and public interest on the Division Bench judgment in Mohan Lal Sharma V. Union of India dated 10.8.2007 against which SLP was filed and the same was dismissed on 3.3.2008.They have further placed reliance on the identical judgment of SEZ in Manorama Devi V. State of Haryana (SLP No.13475/2007 from the judgment and order dated 16.3.2007 in RA No.37/07 and CWP No.5839/2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Shah Kanti Lal Depar and others V. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and others (SLP No.17836/06 from the judgment and order dated 25.9.2006 to 29.9.2006 in SCA No.12943/2006 and other SCAs of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. 37. Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of interference in the matter where the issue of public interest and public purpose has already been decided and as regards the issue of rehabilitation of expropriated owner the same is also in public interest. In support of the aforesaid issue counsel for the respondents has cited following judgments: (i) Pratibha Nema V. State of MP (2003) 10 SCC 626 . (ii) Manubhai Jehtalal Patel V. State of Gujarat AIR 1984 Supreme Court 120. (iii) Ravi Khullar V. Union of India (2007)5 SCC 231 . (iv) New reviera Coop. Housing Society V. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 1 SCC 731 . (v) Satbir Singh Sehrawat V. Union of India. (vi) Ratilal Shakarabhai V. State of Gujarat and others (1970) 2 SCC 264 . (vii) Jage Ram and others V. State of Haryana and others (1971) 1 SCC 671 . (viii) Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti V. State of Rajasthan (1993) 2 SCC 662 . (ix) Bhagat Singh V. State of UP (1992) 2 SCC 384. (x) Babu Singh V. Union of India (1981) 3 SCC 628 . (xi) Bajirao T. Kote V. State of Maharashtra (1995) 2 SCC 442 . (xii) Jaipur Development Authority V. Sita Ram (1997) 3 SCC 522 . (xiii) Pratap V.State of Rajasthan (1996) 3 SCC 1 . (xiv) State of T.N. V. L.Krishnan (1996) 1 SCC 250 . (x) Babu Singh V. Union of India (1981) 3 SCC 628 . (xi) Bajirao T. Kote V. State of Maharashtra (1995) 2 SCC 442 . (xii) Jaipur Development Authority V. Sita Ram (1997) 3 SCC 522 . (xiii) Pratap V.State of Rajasthan (1996) 3 SCC 1 . (xiv) State of T.N. V. L.Krishnan (1996) 1 SCC 250 . (xv) Thirumalai Gounder, T.Palanisami and T.Marappan V. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 Madras 310 (FB). (xvi) Brij Nath Sarin V. Uttar Pradesh Government and another AIR 1953 Allahabad 182. (xvii) Bhagat Singh V.State of UP (1999) 2 SCC 384 . (xviii) Om Prakash V. State of UP (1998) 6 SCC 1 . 38. During the course of arguments, some issues have been raised and the parties have filed affidavit and additional/counter affidavits therefore, reference of the order sheets dated 24.7.2008 and 17.9.2008 is necessary in compliance of which additional/counter affidavit have been filed by the parties which will be dealt with hereunder while dealing with the relevant issue. 39. It would be also relevant to mention here that Mr.Anil Mehta, adopted the submissions of Mr. A.K.Bhandari, Sr.Counsel on Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and raised some additional submissions. 40. Submission of Mr. Bharat Vyas, Addl. AG and Mr.Paras Kuhad appearing for M/s. Mahindra World City are same therefore, the same will be dealt with jointly. 41. Mr. Virendra Lodha appearing for the RIICO adopted the submissions of Mr. Bharat Vyas, Addl. AG who represents the State and the JDA. 42. I have gone through record of the writ petitions and further considered rival submissions of counsel for the parties. 43. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant paras of Mohan Lal Sharma V. Union of India (DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.2207/2007 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.8.2007, against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19703/2007 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3.3.2008, the order sheet dated 24.7.2008 and the gist of affidavits/counter affidavits filed by the petitioner and the State and the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 which is clarificatory in nature of Rehabilitation Policy, 2004.Relevant paras of judgment of DB dated 10.8.2007 in Mohan Lal Sharma V. Union of India 44. The facts along with prayer, discussion and finding on the issue of public interest, conflict between the Act of 2003 and the Act of 205, mala fide intention resulting in the colourable exercise of power are as under: "According to the petitioner, the land proposed to be acquired is approximately within a radius of 10 Kms. From Jaipur and is inappropriate for the purpose of setting up of SEZ as it is highly fertile agricultural land. What is maintained by the petitioner is that after acquiring the land, the JDA would transfer it to RIICO, which in turn, would transfer the same to private Company for commercial use which is illegal and, therefore, the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 should be set aside. It is maintained by the petitioner that the market price of the land is in no way less than Rs. 1 crore per bigha which has been given to RIICO @ Rs. 3,82,338/- per bigha, and as the exchequer is likely to suffer a huge loss by establishment of SEZ, the MoU as well as the lease deed and notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 should be set aside. According to the petitioner, 1600 bigha of land has already been handed over to Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Limited without charging single naya paisa from the said Company though the market price of the land transferred is Rs. 1 crore per bigha, and therefore, having regard to the magnitude of large scale scam not only the transfer of land should be set aside but a high powered committee should be constituted to look into the scam. What is maintained by the petitioner is that under Rule 15-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, the land can be allotted for commercial purpose only through auction,but valuable land has been transferred to therefore, transfer of land in favour of respondent no.6 Company should be set aside. What is maintained by the petitioner is that under Rule 15-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, the land can be allotted for commercial purpose only through auction,but valuable land has been transferred to therefore, transfer of land in favour of respondent no.6 Company should be set aside. It is stated by the petitioner that lease of land to RIICO is a camouflage for transferring the land in favour of respondent no.6 Company, and as the petitioner apprehends that the land sought to be acquired would also be transferred to the said Company through RIICO, the State of Rajasthan, RIICO and JDA should be restrained from transferring any further land to respondent no.6 Company directly or through RIICO. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs, to which reference is made earlier. (emphasis supplied) ..What is stated in the reply is that in terms of MoU dated July 04,2005, the Project Company which was conceived as Special Purpose Vehicle was incorporated in the name and style of Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Limited on August 26, 2005 and upon the application of Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Limited, the State Government made recommendations to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce on November 23, 2005 for grant of approval. It is mentioned in the reply that Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Limited submitted a proposal to the Board of Approval, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India for setting up a sector specific SEZ for IT/ITES Sector and Multiproduct SEZ at Jaipur which is estimated to generate foreign exchange as well as employment, which is in public interest. It is stated in the reply that the Government of India,Ministry of Commerce and Industry by communication dated April 07, 2006 granted formal approval to the proposal for development operation and maintenance of sector specific SEZ and also granted in-principle approval for expansion of the same into a multiproduct SEZ at Jaipur in Rajasthan. What is highlighted in the reply is that Shareholders' agreement was executed on 25 June, 2006 between RIICO and Mahindra Gesco Developers Limited. What is highlighted in the reply is that Shareholders' agreement was executed on 25 June, 2006 between RIICO and Mahindra Gesco Developers Limited. It is stated in the reply that RIICO is holding equity shares in the Mahindra World City (Jaipur)Limited to the extent of 26% whereas Mahindra Gesco Developer's equity in the said Company is 74% and the Board of Directors comprises 10 Directors out of which 4 Directors have to be nominated by RIICO and, therefore, it is wrong to say that private Companies have been favoured in the matter of allotment of land. After pointing out to the Court that the State Government had committed for allotment of 1000 Acres of Government land for the purpose of establishment of SEZ, it is submitted that JDA has allotted Government land vested in it by virtue of Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (JDA Act, for short) for a consideration of Rs. 61,17,40,727/- to RIICO which cannot be considered to be illegal at all. It is mentioned in the reply that vide Notification No.382 dated April 10, 2007, the Central Government, has, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Special Economic Zones Act,2005 (the Central Act of 2005, for short) and in pursuance of Rule 8 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, notified 76.10 hectares in revenue village Kalawara, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur and Nevta as a Special Economic Zone. Thus by filing reply what is pointed out by respondents nos. 2 and 3 is that the matter regarding establishment of Special Economic Zone at Jaipur by Mahindra & Mahindra was considered by BIDI as well as Inter Departmental Steering Committee after which a decision was taken by the State Government to allow development of SEZ through Special Purpose Vehicle, a Company incorporated in the name and style of Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Limited which cannot be regarded as illegal and as there is no large scale scam as alleged by the petitioner, the petition should be dismissed. While dealing with the case of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act of 2003 have been violated, what is pointed out in the reply is that by virtue of Section 51 of the central Act of 2005, the Central legislation prevails over the State legislation in its operation so far as establishment, development and management of SEZs are concerned and, therefore, neither MoU nor lease deed nor notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1894 are liable to be set aside. It is further informed in the reply that the MoU which was executed on July 04, 2005 deals with land available with JDA near Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway and as more land was needed for setting up of SEZ, the JDA had submitted proposal dated August 03, 2005 to the State Government for acquisition of land and after the receipt of the said proposal, the Cabinet took decision dated November 17, 2005 to establish SEZ near Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway and directed that the land meant for SEZ shall be utilised in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India. It is also mentioned in the reply that the State Government received request dated December 02, 2005 from the JDA to acquire land in nine revenue villages near Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway in Sanganer Tehsil which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 45 of the JDA Act and, therefore, after being satisfied, notification dated December 20, 2005 was issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 which was published in the Official Gazette. It is further stated that after publication of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 in the Official Gazette as well as newspapers, necessary enquiry as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was made and on receipt of report, a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made which was published in the Official Gazette on May 08, 2006. After emphatically denying the allegations of the petitioner that the land for SEZ was not identified, it is pointed out in the reply that the approval has been granted by the Central Government on April 07, 2006 in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Act of 2005 and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. After emphatically denying the allegations of the petitioner that the land for SEZ was not identified, it is pointed out in the reply that the approval has been granted by the Central Government on April 07, 2006 in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Act of 2005 and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. (emphasis supplied) The respondent No.4 has filed reply stating that the petitioner has made averments on oath in the petition without any factual basis and as the petitioner has failed to produce reliable evidence on the record of the petition to substantiate baseless allegations, the petition should be dismissed. It is pointed out in the reply that the Deputy Commissioner Zone II of JDA had prepared a proposal dated June 09, 2005 for the purpose of establishing Information Technology City,Bio-Technology City, Knowledge City and SEZ by offering the land admeasuring 3927.82 hectares situated on the southern side of National Highway of Jaipur-Ajmer after leaving a strip of 1 Km. From the centre of the National Highway which is in the public interest. It is emphasised in the reply that the respondents have not taken any action mala fide and the land allotted to RIICO at the prevailing DLC rates cannot be regarded as illegal because the lands allotted were agricultural lands.It is further mentioned in the reply that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 as well as declaration made under Section 6 are in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1894 and are not liable to be set aside. What is mentioned in the reply is that out of the total land admeasuring 1839.67 hectares for the establishment of SEZ an area admeasuring 1340.40 hectares of land is non-irrigated/unirrigated whereas only land admeasuring 499.27 hectares of land is irrigated and as land admeasuring 1341 hectares is not fit for agriculture, neither the price at which the lands have been leased out nor execution of lease deed can be regarded as mala fide exercise of powers. It is further pointed out in the reply that the average price as per DLC rates comes to Rs. 3,82,338/- per bigha which is not low as suggested by the petitioner and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. It is further pointed out in the reply that the average price as per DLC rates comes to Rs. 3,82,338/- per bigha which is not low as suggested by the petitioner and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. (emphasis supplied) ..After pointing out that the allegations of mala fides and favouritism are totally ill founded, it was argued that no person other than respondent no.5 had made a proposal under Section 3 of the Central Act of 2005 and, therefore, the charge of favouritism should be regarded as baseless. It was pointed out that no person has complained of favouritism or being discriminated against, on the ground that his proposal was disapproved and, therefore, the plea based on mala fides should not be accepted by the Court. While meeting with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government land has been disposed of at throw away prices, it was argued that this argument betrays the basic misconception about the nature and purpose of transaction which is not purely commercial but an integral step in achieving the purpose and object of the Central Act of 2005 and should be considered in that perspective. According to the learned counsel for respondents nos. 5 and 6, there are stringent conditions in the lease deed breach of which entitles the JDA to resume the land without any notice or compensation and no case is made out by the petitioner to set aside the same. It was argued that having regard to the element of public interest involved in setting up SEZ and public benefits arising therefrom, the decision to set up SEZ is not liable to be set aside on considerations of price and, therefore, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. According to the learned counsels for the respondents, the respondents have deposited a sum of Rs. 61,17,40,727/- with RIICO and therefore the allegation made by the petitioner that not single paise has been paid by the respondent-Company stands falsified and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. (emphasis supplied) The learned counsels for the other respondents have by and large adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for respondents nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, detailed reference to the same is avoided. As noticed earlier, several authorities have been cited at the Bar by the learned counsels for the parties for guidance of this Court. (emphasis supplied) The learned counsels for the other respondents have by and large adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for respondents nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, detailed reference to the same is avoided. As noticed earlier, several authorities have been cited at the Bar by the learned counsels for the parties for guidance of this Court. However, detailed reference to the same is avoided to see that the judgment which has even otherwise become lengthy is not unnecessarily burdened. The contention that in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act of 2003, the reliefs claimed in the petition should be granted is devoid of merits. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 51 of the Central Act of 2005 which reads as under: (emphasis supplied) "51. Act to have overriding effect. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." (emphasis supplied) Though Section 6 of the State Act of 2003 contemplates that the State Government shall identify and notify the area to be developed as a Special Economic Zone whereas sub-section (2) of the said section provides that the State Government shall select a developer for the purpose of development of the zone and the procedure for the selection of the developer shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government, this Court finds that in view of the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Central Act of 2005, any person who intends to set up Special Economic Zone after identifying the area is entitled to make a proposal to the State Government concerned for the purpose of setting up Special Economic Zone whereas under sub section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act any person who intends to set up Special Economic Zone after identifying the area is entitled, at his option, to make a proposal directly to the Board for the purpose of setting up Special Economic Zone. These provisions are inconsistent with the provisions contained in Section 6 of the State Act of 2003 and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 51 of the Central Act, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted on the basis that the MoU or for that purpose lease deed or publication of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 are contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act of 2003. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsels for the respondents that the petitioner has neither challenged the approval dated April 07,2006 for allotment of 1000 acres of land to RIICO nor challenged the notification dated April 10, 2007 published under Section 4(1) of the Central Act of 2005 and, therefore, the reliefs which are misconceived cannot be granted. (emphasis supplied) ...The contention that the JDA has acted on the dictates of the State Government in the matter of allotment of land to respondent no.5 and, therefore, the lease deed executed in favour of respondent no.5 Company should be set aside, cannot be accepted. The record would indicate that the JDA is an important participant in the matter of establishment of SEZ at Jaipur. The decision to allot the land to RIICO was taken by the JDA in the public interest. So also the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is for public purpose. An SEZ is conceived of as an engine to economic growth of the cuntry with a view to attracting investment into the country and generation of foreign exchange through export of goods and services. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioner, acting in alleged public interest, to stall the development project of national public importance particularly when no other potential developer has made any grievance whatsoever of the declaration of respondent no.5's SEZ by the Central Government. Insistence of the petitioner that originally the proposal of the developer to set up SEZ was received when the State Act of 2003 was in vogue and the Central Act of 2005 was nowhere in sight and, therefore, it should be processed and taken to its logical conclusion only in that enactment, does not appeal either to reason or logic. Insistence of the petitioner that originally the proposal of the developer to set up SEZ was received when the State Act of 2003 was in vogue and the Central Act of 2005 was nowhere in sight and, therefore, it should be processed and taken to its logical conclusion only in that enactment, does not appeal either to reason or logic. As noticed earlier, the State Government has all along been supporting the proposal to permit respondent no.5 to set up SEZ. In fact, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan by his letter dated November 23, 2005 addressed to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, New Delhi requested that such proposal be considered by Board of Approval for grant of 'in-principle approval' for the proposed IT/ITES SEZ.When the proposal received consideration of the Board of Approval which was hitherto functioning on the basis of the policy guidelines contained in EXIM policy of the Government of India 2002-07, the Parliament with a view to lending enough confidence to investors to commit substantial funds for development of infrastructure and for setting up SEZ, enacted the Central Act of 2005 which was noticed on February 10, 2006. At that stage, respondent no.5 submitted a fresh application which is available at Annexure R/2/6 of the record of this case, on proforma prescribed at FORM-A under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006, to the Government of India. It is on that application that the proposal of the Project Company was processed and on the basis of concurrence already given by the State Government in terms of proviso 3 to sub-section (3) of Section 3, the Government of India vide its letter dated April 07, 2006 granted formal approval to the proposal. This order of approval carries stipulation in condition no.3(i) mentioned therein to the effect that the developer shall develop, operate and maintain SEZ in terms of the Central Act of 2005 and the Rules made thereunder and further in condition no.3(v) of that order, it is stated that the project shall be implemented and operated in terms of the Central Act of 2005 and the Rules and order made thereunder. With the new enactment having been enforced and the matter processed thereunder, there was no question of still processing the matter under the old Act of 2003. With the new enactment having been enforced and the matter processed thereunder, there was no question of still processing the matter under the old Act of 2003. ...These two enactments shall have to be therefore harmoniously construed so as to make the legislative scheme workable. When an individual has been given the liberty to directly make a proposal for setting up the SEZ, what terms and conditions should the State Government prescribe while transferring the land owned, acquired or controlled by it to such developer, will depend on the nature of the proposal and conditions on which such proposal is accepted by the Government which may vary from case to case. There can be therefore no generalisation of such terms and conditions in the shape of rules as is being insisted upon by the petitioner. There are, in the present case, several such specific terms and conditions including one with regard to 26% equity participation of RIICO, the Government owned Company, with hosts of other conditions reflected from the various documents such as the MoU, State Support Agreement and different Government orders. Even otherwise the record would indicate that the respondents have acted in a transparent manner before allotting the land for setting up SEZ. The matter has been scrutinised at different levels in the government. Initially it was examined by the Inter-departmental Steering Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. The BIDI, which is the highest policy making body of the State Government for deciding upon the issues relating to economic development and investment promotion in the State, also upon scrutiny cleared the proposal. This body is headed by the Chief Minister with Ministers from various major departments of the State as its members and Chief Secretary of the Government as Member-secretary and then finally it was approved by the State Cabinet. The record thus does not indicate that the land was allotted in a surreptitious or clandestine manner. Nor does the record show that there is any scam as it sought to be made out by the petitioner. It would not be out ofplace to state that so-called scam is a figment of the imagination of the petitioner which has no factual basis at all. As noticed earlier, several decisions taken under the Central Act of 2005 are not challenged by the petitioner at all. It would not be out ofplace to state that so-called scam is a figment of the imagination of the petitioner which has no factual basis at all. As noticed earlier, several decisions taken under the Central Act of 2005 are not challenged by the petitioner at all. Therefore, the Court will have to proceed on the footing that those decisions are valid. Once the decisions taken under the Central Act of 2005 are treated to be valid, this Court finds that nothing remains to be done in the instant public interest litigation. The petition will have to be carried to its logical conclusion by dismissing the same. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondents is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) 45. The Division Bench in the PIL writ petition filed by Mohan Lal Sharma (supra) has repelled the contentions of the petitioner, the relevant extract of which have been reproduced here-inabove. However, at page 22, considered the objection of the respondent pointed out by them that the petitioner has neither challenged the approval dated 7.4.2006 for allotment of land to the RIICO nor challenged the notification dated 10.4.2007 published under section 4(1) of the Central Act, 2005. Further, while dealing with the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act of 1894,the Court has held that the same is for public purpose with the further observation that 'SEZ' is conceived of as an engine to economic growth of the country with a view to controlling investment into the country and generation of foreign exchange through export of goods and services, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not open to the petitioner, acting in alleged public interest to stall the development project of national public importance particularly when no other potential developer has made any grievance whatsoever of the declaration of the respondent No.5's SEZ by the Central Government.Order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Supreme Court in the SLP arising out of order dated 10.8.2007 in Mohan Lal Sharma V. UOI "3.3.2008 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard. The special leave petition is dismissed. Sd/- Court Master Sd/- Court Master ORDER sheet dated 24.7.2008 in instant writ petition. "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The special leave petition is dismissed. Sd/- Court Master Sd/- Court Master ORDER sheet dated 24.7.2008 in instant writ petition. "Heard learned counsel for the parties. In compliance to the direction dated 23.07.2008 Shri D.B. Gupta, Secretary, U.D.H. Government of Rajasthan is present in person and he has handed-over the record to Mr. Bharat Vyas, A.A.G., but the same could not be perused because of shortage of the time. However the matter was heard and the policy framed by the Ministry of Rural Development dated 31.10.2007 of rehabilitation and resettlement was the subject matter of arguments of both the parties. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that major portion of their land is fully developed and the families are residing therein, therefore, in the case of Nandan Green Housing Limited, the State Government has included the said land and houses in the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the said land and the houses were not included in the final notification dated 29.04.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, subsequently separate notification was issued for the same under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Further submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that not only in Nandan Green Housing Limited but there are other cases also in which the fully developed lands whereon buildings/shops have been constructed and the families are residing/commercial activities in the business premises are going on, have been acquired. The aforesaid developed acquired land is in excess of the requirement of SEZ Project i.e. Mahendra World City. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that excess land was acquired for rehabilitation of the persons whose land was acquired for the SEZ Project, therefore, the same is also a public purpose. As regards the developed lands where the families are residing/commercial activities in the shops/ business premises are going on, no material is available on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that excess land was acquired for rehabilitation of the persons whose land was acquired for the SEZ Project, therefore, the same is also a public purpose. As regards the developed lands where the families are residing/commercial activities in the shops/ business premises are going on, no material is available on the record. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the question which arises is whether the State Government has considered the issue of dislodging families residing in the buildings constructed over the land which is now in the category of developed lands, in order to rehabilitate the displaced persons whose lands have been acquired for the actual requirement of the SEZ Project, and if so, then what are the reasons for continuing the acquisition proceedings of the aforesaid surplus developed land. (emphasis supplied) The U.D.H. Secretary is directed to file an additional affidavit on the aforesaid issues within one week.Put up on 31.07.2008. On this date also, the Secretary to Govt. UDH Department will remain present in person. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Addl. A.G. will keep the record ready." Order sheet dated 17.9.2008 "The copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 5.9.2008 in Sooraram Pratap Reddy and ors. V. Distt. Collector, Ranga Reddy (Civil Appeal No.5509 of 2008) was made available to the counsel for the petitioner and his submission is that the same will not cover all the issues raised in the present writ petition. As regards record, following clarifications have been sought from the counsel for the respondents State: (i) when notice of personal hearing under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the Gautam Estate Pvt.Ltd. and when personal hearing took place. (ii) When the objections filed under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 by Nandan Greens Houses Ltd. were decided. (iii) In the Cabinet decision of 2005 that the land is to be utilised as per the directions of the Central Government but the date of the same has not been referred nor any reference of the Rehabilitation Policy of 2004 was found in the record. (iv) It is also not clear whether the compensation has been deposited/paid in case of Gautam Estate Pvt.Ltd. in compliance to the Award or whether any award at all has been passed in case of Nandan Greens Houses Ltd. V. State. (iv) It is also not clear whether the compensation has been deposited/paid in case of Gautam Estate Pvt.Ltd. in compliance to the Award or whether any award at all has been passed in case of Nandan Greens Houses Ltd. V. State. If so, what is the present position. (emphasis supplied). Counsel for the respondents sought one day's time to place all the aforesaid information on record supported by an affidavit. List on 18.9.2008." 46. The petitioners in their application dated 21.9.2007 supported by affidavit (filed in SBCWP No.9601/2006 Nandan Green Houses Ltd. V.State) have inter alia stated that the Government of India through the Secretary, Department of Commerce has issued a letter dated 15.6.2007 (Anx.30) whereby the decision taken by the Central Government with regard to the acquisition of land for establishment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) has been taken. It is further stated in the application that the acquisition proceedings of the land of the petitioner was initiated vide notification dated 22.12.2005 and is still pending and the award has not so far been passed prior to 22.12.2005. The petitioner has challenged the notification issued under section 4 and 6 of the Act in the writ petition and the proceedings for acquisition have not been made final prior to 5.4.2007. It is then stated that the JDA has issued a list of approved schemes of various societies in the city of Jaipur, which has been published so that the fake housing societies which are not approved may not mislead the general public. This list was published in the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 12.1.2007 (Anx.31) and in the said list, in Zone 11, the name of M/s. Nandan Green has been shown. 47. The additional submissions of the petitioner in the affidavit dated 1.10.2007 are that the Dy.Secretary, Department of Housing Development, (Anx.32) Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur has on 21.2.2007 written a letter to the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority that no additional land is required by RIICO for SEZ and therefore, the proposal for land acquisition is dropped as the land of petitioner is not required for SEZ. The State Govt. and JDA was bound to withdraw the acquisition of the petitioner's land in view of the above order. The land under acquisition is much more than 3000 acre which is required for SEZ. 48. The State Govt. and JDA was bound to withdraw the acquisition of the petitioner's land in view of the above order. The land under acquisition is much more than 3000 acre which is required for SEZ. 48. The further submissions of the petitioner in the affidavit dated 15.11.2007 are that from the reply of the Respondents, it is clear that the land of the Petitioner is being acquired for Mahindra World City, (Jaipur Limited) a part of Mahindra Groups of Industries and a subsidiary of Mahindra Gesco Developers Limited. It is also admitted by Respondent No.5 Mahindra World City in the reply that application was submitted for setting up of Jaipur SEZ by Mahindra World City (Jaipur Limited) under the provisions of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. Mahindra World City, (Jaipur Limited) is registered under the Companies Act. That from the reply of the Respondent, it is clear that the land is in fact is being acquired for Company. That the provisions of part VII of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are fully applicable to the present case and it was mandatory for the State Government and the Mahindra World City, (Jaipur Limited) to comply with the provisions of Section 39 to 44 (B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. None of the provisions of part VII of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been followed in the present case and the entire acquisition is, therefore, illegal. The acquisition is further malafide in the sense that although in the notification issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it has been stated that it appears to the State Government that the land in question is required by Jaipur Development Authority for proposed Special Economic Zone whereas in fact, neither the State Government nor the Jaipur Development Authority is establishing the Special Economic Zone in Jaipur. The entire acquisition proceeding is mala fide. 49. Relevant paras of the affidavit dated 6.8.2008 filed in compliance with the order dated 24.7.2008 by State on the issue of public purpose and rehabilitation, from para 4 onwards, are as follows: "4.That at the very outset it is submitted that the petitioner is holding total area measuring 15.96 hects. which comes to 63 bighas 2 biswas or say 1,90,961 sq.yards or 1,59,600 sq.mtrs. Out of this, land measuring 6.86 hects. i.e. 27 bigha 2 biswa or say 82,080 sq.yards or 68,600 sq.mtrs. which comes to 63 bighas 2 biswas or say 1,90,961 sq.yards or 1,59,600 sq.mtrs. Out of this, land measuring 6.86 hects. i.e. 27 bigha 2 biswa or say 82,080 sq.yards or 68,600 sq.mtrs. Forming part of khasra nos.669/968, 680, 681, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 709, 713, 714, 715, 717, 719, 720, 721 and 716 and 718 revenue village Bagru Khurd Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. Out of this, land measuring 1.20 hects. forming part of khasra nos.716, 703, 704, 713 and 717 was sold to Swes Club Retreat by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 22.03.1998 and 29.03.1999. It will not be out of place here to mention that the purchaser M/s Swes Club Retreat has filed CWP No.707/2007 titled M/s Swes Club Retreat v. State of Rajasthan which is pending consideration with this court. Thus, the land under acquisition and possibly be challenged in these proceedings is 5.84 hects. as the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the above stated 1.02 hects. land. 5. That it is further an admitted case of the petitioner that out of the total area of 15.96 hects. conversion of 1900 mtrs. of land forming part of khasra No.716, 703, 704,717, and 713 was converted by the competent Authority under the 1992 Conversion Rules applicable in the rural areas for commercial purposes. It is further an admitted case of the petitioner that the competent authority under the Act of 1992 applicable in the rural areas allowed conversion of 4,000 sq.mtrs. Of land for residential purposes in khasra No.677,678, 680, 681, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 709, 714, 715, 716, 718, 719, 720, and 721. The conversion order was passed by the Competent Authority under the 192 Rules on 18.11.1997 and co-incidentally the revenue village Bigru Khurd was included in the Jaipur Region, the expression defined under Section 2(8) of the JDA Act, on 25.10.1997 vide Notification No.F.7(22)UDH/3/Part of the self same date. 6. That it is further an admitted case of the petitioner as disclosed in the petition as well as the documents that its scheme over the land under acquisition is not a residential scheme. The total area under Acquisition which is subject matter of this writ petition is 58,400 sq.mtrs. Out of which less than 4000 sq.mtrs. 6. That it is further an admitted case of the petitioner as disclosed in the petition as well as the documents that its scheme over the land under acquisition is not a residential scheme. The total area under Acquisition which is subject matter of this writ petition is 58,400 sq.mtrs. Out of which less than 4000 sq.mtrs. was converted for residential purposes as the land bearing khasra no.677 and 678 is not under subject acquisition. It is also an admitted position that at no point of time the petitioner got its scheme for any purpose approved from any statutory authority competent to do so. It is further an admitted position that the petitioner carved out plots varying in two sizes i.e. 1500 sq.yards and 750 sq.yards. The petitioner admittedly carved out 26 plots measuring 1500 sq.yards and 27 plots measuring 750 sq.yards as admitted in para 9 of the writ petition. Admittedly, these plots were sold as agricultural land to the persons named in Schedule-13 of the writ petition at page 66 and 67 of the paper book. Admittedly, the petitioner/the purchasers of the agricultural land shown in schedule 13 at pages 66 and 67 of the paper book constructed small areas without any prior permission from any statutory authorities and such constructions cannot be termed as residential houses. The petitioner admittedly has termed the area of demised plots and construction raised thereon as farm houses. Admittedly, no proof has been placed on record to establish that the above stated 53 demised separate pieces of land are used for residential purposes. 7.That in the backdrop of these facts the humble deponent submits that on 1.08.2005 the State Government received representation from the Jaipur Development Authority in discharge of its statutory functions requesting acquisition of certain lands in 20 revenue villages towards southern side of National Highway No.8, Jaipur-Ajmer. In the master plan the entire area is shown as the rural area and some of the places are water bodies. The matter was considered and placed for the consideration of the cabinet in terms of the decision taken by the State Government. The Cabinet considered the matter on 17.1.2005 and approved the proposal with modification permitting the administrative department to implement the proposals concerning development of Special Economic Zone on Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway. The matter was considered and placed for the consideration of the cabinet in terms of the decision taken by the State Government. The Cabinet considered the matter on 17.1.2005 and approved the proposal with modification permitting the administrative department to implement the proposals concerning development of Special Economic Zone on Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway. 8.That a Cabinet Sub-Committee for implementation of the Cabinet decision dated 17.1.2005 was constituted vide order no.F.4 (1)Cab/99 Part-I of the self same date. The Jaipur Development Authority vide its Communication No.2719 dated 2.12.2005 requested the State Government to acquire land in revenue villages Khatwada, Nevta, Jhai, Bhambhoria, Bagru Khurd, Kalwada, Paldi Parsa,Teelawas and Narsinghpura Dadia. The land proposed for acquisition measures 3510 acres. It is submitted that in both the proposals i.e. the proposal dated 3.08.2005 and 2.12.2005 the subject land was proposed for acquisition by the JDA. The State Government considered the proposal and ultimately decision was taken inconsonance with the Cabinet decision dated 17.11.2005 to issue Notification under Section 4(1) of the act of 1894 and accordingly, therefore, the same was published on 20.12.2005 inviting objections. Thus, it is clear that the State Government considered the issue of the acquisition of the subject land while fully aware of the fact of nature of the development having taken place. 9. That the petitioner submitted objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The LAO gave its report on 27.04.2006. The objections filed by the petitioner were considered. The report under Section 5A of the Act 1894 has been filed as Annex.20 page 125.The individual purchasers also submitted their objections. The LAO considered the objections and submitted its report on 27.04.2006. The report was considered by the State Government and ultimately a decision was taken to issue declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 10. That the total requirement for the development of SEZ on the southern side of Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway is 3510 acre. The land to be allotted to RIICO Ltd. For development of Industrial Area is part of the comprehensive scheme of development of SEZ over the land under acquisition. It is submitted that the State Government took policy decision on 27.10.2005 and permitted allotment of developed land to expropriated owners in acquisition proceedings. The land to be allotted to RIICO Ltd. For development of Industrial Area is part of the comprehensive scheme of development of SEZ over the land under acquisition. It is submitted that the State Government took policy decision on 27.10.2005 and permitted allotment of developed land to expropriated owners in acquisition proceedings. The policy is put into effect by giving option to the owner during the pendency of the proceedings under sub Section 2 of section 11 of the Act of 1894, which provides for consensus award. Accordingly, the State Government with the avowed object of rehabilitating the expropriated owner included larger area in its decision for the acquisition of 3510 acres of land for the purposes of JDA. Thus for this reason all lands including the subject land in the writ petition petition is subjected to acquisition. 11. That the land in question is not a residential developed land. The land in question is not a developed commercial land in which shops and business is going on. The subject land is not surplus land as it is required for the complete project, which includes allotment of land to RIICO." (emphasis supplied) 50. 11. That the land in question is not a residential developed land. The land in question is not a developed commercial land in which shops and business is going on. The subject land is not surplus land as it is required for the complete project, which includes allotment of land to RIICO." (emphasis supplied) 50. After reference of submissions and additional submissions, it would also be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of Section 3(b), 3(f), 4,5A, 6,11, 23, 31, 48 and 49 of the Act of 1894, which are as under:Sec.3(b) "the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;" Sec.3(f) "public purpose" (i)the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village-sites; (ii)the provision of land for town or rural planning; (iii)the provision fo land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned; (iv)the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (v)the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (vi)the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government, or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or a cooperative society within the meaning of any law relating to cooperative societies for the time being in force in any State; (emphasis supplied) (vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority; (emphasis supplied) (viii)the provision of any premises or b;building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for Companies." Sec.4 Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon - (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Officials Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification 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 publication of the notification. (emphasis supplied) (2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either, generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,- to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore in the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked,to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle; Provided that no person shall enter into any b;building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so." Sec.5A. Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry,k ifany, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (emphasis supplied) Section 6. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (emphasis supplied) Section 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the 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 authorised to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5A, sub-section (2): (emphasis supplied) 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 (ii)published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 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 betaken 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. 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 situate 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 date of such publication and the giving of such public notice,being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication 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. (emphasis supplied) (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive 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 a manner hereinafter appearing. (emphasis supplied) Section 11. (emphasis supplied) (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive 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 a manner hereinafter appearing. (emphasis supplied) Section 11. Enquiry and award by Collector.- (1) On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land and at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub section (1) and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation, and shall make an award under his hand of - (i)the true ara of the land; (ii)the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii)the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him; Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may,without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (emphasis supplied) Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration - (emphasis supplied).......... (emphasis supplied) Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration - (emphasis supplied).......... (1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award 55 CWP No.6898/2006 (SEZ) CWP No.9601/2006 an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded. (2)In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." Section 31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court. (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next subsection. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court. (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next subsection. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with the sanction of appropriate Government instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as 56 CWP No.6898/2006 (SEZ) CWP No.9601/2006 may be equitable having regard to the interest of the parties concerned. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof." (emphasis supplied) "48.Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (emphasis supplied) (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3) The provisions of Part III of this act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section." 49. Acquisition of part of house or building.- (1) The provisions of this Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring a part only of any house, manufactory or other building, if the owner desires that the whole of such house, manufactory or building shall be so acquired: Provided that the owner may, at any time before the Collector has made his award under section 11, by notice in writing, withdraw or modify, his expressed desire that the whole of such house,manufactory or building shall be so acquired; Provided also that, if any question shall arise as to whether any land proposed to be taken under this Act does or does not form part of a house, manufactory or building within the meaning of this section, the Collector shall refer the determination of such question to the Court and shall not take possession of such land until after the question has been determined. (emphasis supplied) In deciding on such a reference, the Court shall have regard to the question whether the land proposed to be taken is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory or building. (2) If, in the case of any claim under section 23, sub-section (1), thirdly, by a person interested, on account of the serving of the land to be acquired from his other land, the appropriate Government is of opinion that the claim is unreasonable or excessive, it may, at any time before the Collector has made his award, order the acquisition of the whole of the land of which the land first sought to be acquired forms a part. (3) in the case last here in before provided for, no fresh declaration or other proceedings under section 6 to 10, both inclusive, shall be necessary; but the Collector shall without delay furnish a copy of the order of the appropriate Government to the person interested, and shall thereafter proceed to make his award under section 11." 51. (3) in the case last here in before provided for, no fresh declaration or other proceedings under section 6 to 10, both inclusive, shall be necessary; but the Collector shall without delay furnish a copy of the order of the appropriate Government to the person interested, and shall thereafter proceed to make his award under section 11." 51. One joint notification dated 20.12.2005 under section 4 of the Act of 1894 and two separate notifications dated 29.4.2006 and 30.10.2006 under section 6 of the Act of 1894 issued in these cases are as follows: Notification u/s 4 dated 20.12.2005" jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx dzekad%&i&6 ( 28 ) ufo@3@05 fnukad 20-12-05 vf/klwpuk jkT; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd fuEufyf[kr LFkku ij t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks xzke >kbZ] HkEHkksfj;k] cx:[kqnZ] nhykokl] dyokM+k] [kMokMk] usoVk] ujflagiqjk nkfn;k ,oe~ ikyMh ijlk rglhy lkaxkusj esa izLrkfor Lis'ky bdksuksfed tksu gsrq t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks vius d`R;ksa ds fuoZgu o fodkl dk;Zdze dks fdz;kUo;u gsrq Hkwfe dh vko';drk gS vFkok gksus dh lEHkkouk gSA vr% Hkwfe vokfIr vkf/kfu;e 1989 ( 1984 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la[;k&1 ) dh /kkjk&4 ( 1 ) dh vuqikyuk esa ,rn~}kjk leLr fgr/kkfj;ksa ds lwpukFkZ lkoZtfud lwpuk izdkf'kr dh tkrh gSA vr% vc pwafd Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk&42 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa jkT; ljdkj vius vf/kuLFk vf/kdkjh Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj dks fuEukuqlkj of.kZr Hkwfe ,oa Hkou ij vius deZpkfj;ksa lfgr ;fn dksbZ gks] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z gsrq vf/kd`r djrh gSA 1- mi;qZDr iz;kstu ds fy, ,slh Hkwfe dk losZ{k.k rFkk ry o ekiu djrsA 2- mDr v/khu Hkwfe dks [kksnus rFkk mlesa cksfjax djusA 3- os vU; leLr dk;Z djus tks ;g ckr Kkr djus ds fy, vko';d gks fd D;k ,slh Hkwfe lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy, mi;qDr gS vFkok 4- ,slh Hkwfe dh lhek ukius rFkk mlesa ;k ml ij fd, tkus okys izLrkfor dk;Z ;fn dksbZ gks rks :ijs[kk cukusA 5- ry ekiu vFkok lhekvksa vFkok fd;s tkus okys dk;Z dh js[kkvksa ds fu'kku yxkus rFkk [kkbZ;ka [kksnusA 6- tgka vU;Fkk losZ{k.k iwjk u gks mlds ;k ry ekiu u gks lds ;k lhek vFkok :i js[kk u crkbZ tk lds rks fdlh [kM+h Qly ds fdlh Hkkx vFkok Qsflax vFkok taxy dks dkVus rFkk gVkusA ijUrq tSlk fd mDr vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk&4 dh mi/kkjk 2 ds ijUrqd esa fn;k x;k gS tc rd mls vf/kdkjd dh lgefr u gks] dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkh izdkj mlds izakx.k vFkok fdlh edku ls lEc) m|ku esa mlds vfHk/kkjd dks ,slk djus dh viuh bPNk dk de ls de lkr fnu dk fyf[kr uksfVl fn, fcuk izos'k ugha djsxkA vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk fooj.k layXu vuqlkj gSA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls ( lh0,l0 csuhoky )" (emphasis supplied)Notification u/s 6 dated 29.04.06" jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx dzekad%&i&6 ( 28 ) ufo@3@05 t;iqj] vf/klwpuk fnukad 29-04-06 jkT; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd t;iqj fodkl izf/kdj.k dks xzke >kbZ] HkEHkksfj;k] cx:[kqnZ] nhykokl] dyokMk] [kVokMk] usoVk] ujflagiqjk nkfn;k ,oe~ ikyMh ijlk rglhy lkaxkusj dh Hkwfe Lis'ky bdksuksfed tksu gsrq vFkkZr t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks vius d`R;ksa ds fuoZgu o fodkl dk;kZdze dks fdz;kUo;u gsrq Hkwfe dh vko';drk gS vFkok gksus dh lEHkkouk gSA blfy, blds }kjk ?kks"k.kk dh tkrh gS fd layXu foLr`r fooj.k esa of.kZr Hkwfe mijksDr iz;kstu ds fy, visf{kr gSA (emphasis supplied) ;g ?kks"k.kk Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1894] 1894 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la0 1 dh /kkjk&6 izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh] uxj fodkl ;kstuk,a] t;iqj ds izkIr gq, /kkjk&5 , ds izfrosnu ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr mu leLr O;fDr;ksa ds fy, dh xbZ ftlls fd budk lEcU/k gks ldrk gSA Hkwfe uD'ks dk fujh{k.k Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh uxj fodkl ;kstuk,a t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k Hkou fLFkr dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&7 ds vUrxZr Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh dks Hkwfe vkokfIr dh vfxze dk;Zokgh ds fy, vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk fooj.k layXu vuqlkj gSA Notification u/s 6 dated 30.10.06 jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx dzekad%& i&6 ( 28 ) ufo@111@05 vf/klwpuk fnukad 30-10-06 jkT; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd fuEufyf[kr LFkku ij t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks xzke ox:[kqnZ rglhy lkaxkusj dh Hkwfe Lis'ky bdksuksfed tksu gsrq vFkkZr t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks vius d`R;ksa ds fuoZgu o fodkl dk;Zdze dks fdz;kUo;u gsrq Hkwfe dh vko';drk gS vFkok gksus dh lEHkkouk gSA blfy, blds }kjk ?kks"k.kk dh tkrh gS fd layXu foLr`r fooj.k esa of.kZr Hkwfe mijksDr iz;kstu ds fy, visf{kr gSA ;g ?kks"k.kk Hkwfe mijksDr iz;kstu ds fy, visf{kr gSA ;g ?kks"k.kk Hkwfe vf/kfu;e 1894 1894 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la[;k&1 dh /kkjk&6 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUuxZr Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh uxj fodkl ;kstuk,a t;iqj ds izkIr gq, /kkjk&5 , ds izfrosnu ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr mu leLr O;fDr;ksa ds fy, dh xbZ gS ftlls fd budk lEcU/k gks ldrk gSA Hkwfe ds uD'ks dk fujh{k.k Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh uxj fodkl ;kstuk,a t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k Hkou fLFkr dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&7 ds vUrxZr Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh dks Hkwfe vokfIr dh vfxze dk;Zokgh ds fy, vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk fooj.k layXu lwph vuqlkj gSA vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS%& xzke cx:[kqnZ rglhy lkaxkusj ftyk t;iqjA dzl0 [kkrk la0 [k0u0 jdck gSDV0 esa fdLe tehu vokIr {ks=Qy [kkrsnkj dk uke 1 104 669@968 0-16 - 0-16 - - - 680 0-68 - 0-68 - - - 681 0-3 - 0-3 - - - 698 0-52 - 0-52 - - - 699 0-46 - 0-46 - - - 700 0-45 - 0-45 - - - 701 0-24 - 0-24 - - - 702 0-42 - 0-42 - - - 703 0-37 - 0-37 - - - 704 0-47 - 0-47 - - - 705 0-25 - 0-25 - - - 706 0-09 - 0-09 - - - 707 0-12 - 0-12 - - - 709 0-32 - 0-21 - - - 713 0-25 - 0-12 - - - 714 0-25 - 0-13 - - - 715 0-26 - 0-26 - - - 717 0-32 - 0-32 - - - 719 0-22 - 0-14 - - - 720 0-41 - 0-41 - - - 721 0-15 - 0-09 - - - - 6-71 - 6-21 - [kkrsnkj dk uke [kkrsnkj dk uke eSllZ uUnu xzhu gkmlst fy0 jft0 vkWfil 1 ljkstuh uk;Mq lkj.kh dydRrk tfj;s Mk;jsDVj cuokjh yky iq0 xksj/ku yky fu0ih0 21 ckslikMk ysu] dydRrk vkuUn fd'kksj iq0 rqylh nkl vxzoky fu0bZ0&224] vEckcMh] t;iqjA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls vks0ih0 xqIrk 'kklu mi lfpo " 52. In the instant case, the acquisition was complete on 30.10.2006 when the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2004 was in force and the land vested in the Government. Subsequently, the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 was published by the Government of India with a direction to bring it to the notice of the general public and give wide publicity. The said Policy of 2007 appears to be clarificatory in nature of the Rehabilitation Policy of 2004 as would be evident from clarificatory Clauses 1.3, 1.7, 2 and 3(b) relating to rehabilitation on Government land, acquisition of the land of others for the same and grant of additional benefit to the similar policies framed by the State Government for public sector undertaking. The relevant clauses of the Policy of 2004 and relevant Clauses 1.7. Clauses 1.1 to 1.7, 2 and 3(b) of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 are as follows:Relevant paras of the National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation For Project Affected Families, 2003 (published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part-1, Section 1, No.46, dated 17th February, 2004. "1.1 Compulsory acquisition of land for public purpose including infrastructure projects displaces people, forcing them to give up their home, assets and means of livelihood. Apart from depriving them of their lands, livelihoods and resourcebase, displacement has other traumatic psychological and socio-cultural consequences. The Government of India recognizes the need to minimise large scale displacement to the extent possible and, where displacement is inevitable, the need to handle with utmost care and forethought issues relating to Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families. Such an approach is especially necessary in respect of tribals, small & marginal farmers and women. (emphasis supplied) 1.2 The system of extending cash compensation does not,by itself,in most cases, enable the affected families to obtain cultivable agricultural land, homestead and other resources which they have to surrender to the State. The difficulties are more acute for persons who are critically dependent on the acquired assets for their subsistence/livelihoods, such as landless agricultural workers, forest dwellers,tenants and artisans, as their distress and destitution is more severe, and, yet they are not eligible for cash compensation. (emphasis supplied) 1.3 Some States and Central Ministries/Departments have their own Policies and Guidelines for Resettlement and Rehabilitation. However, a National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families (PAFs) has not so far been enunciated. (emphasis supplied) 1.3 Some States and Central Ministries/Departments have their own Policies and Guidelines for Resettlement and Rehabilitation. However, a National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families (PAFs) has not so far been enunciated. This Document aims at laying down basic norms and packages in the shape of a Policy which would, henceforth be referred to as the National Policy on the Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families - 2003 (NPRR-2003). (emphasis supplied) 1.4 The Policy essentially addresses the need to provide succor to the asset less rural poor, support the rehabilitation efforts of the resource poor sections, namely, small and marginal farmers, SCs/STs and women who have been displaced. Besides, it seeks to provide a broad canvas for an effective dialogue between the Project Affected Families and the Administration for Resettlement & Rehabilitation Such a dialogue is expected to enable timely completion of projects with a sense of definiteness as regards costs and adequate attention to the needs of the displaced persons especially the resource poor sections. The intention is to impart greater flexibility for interaction and negotiation so that the resultant Package gains all-round acceptability in the shape of a workable instrument providing satisfaction to all stakeholders/ Requiring Bodies. (emphasis supplied) 1.6 The rehabilitation grants and other monetary benefits proposed in the Policy would be minimum and applicable to all project affected families whether belonging to BPL or non-BPL families. States where R&R packages are higher than proposed in the Policy are free to adopt their own packages. (emphasis supplied)Chapter - II 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY 2.1 The objectives of the Policy are as follows: (a) To minimise displacement and to identify non-displacing or leastdisplacing alternatives. (b) To plan the resettlement and rehabilitation of Project affected Families (PAFs) including special needs of Tribals and vulnerable sections; (c) To provide better standard of living to PAFs; and (d) To facilitate harmonious relationship between the Requiring Body and PAFs through mutual cooperation." (emphasis supplied)Relevant Clauses of National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007. 1.1 Provision of public facilities or infrastructure often requires the exercise of legal powers by the state under the principle of eminent domain for acquisition of private property, leading to involuntary displacement of people, depriving them of their land, livelihood and shelter; restricting their access to traditional resource base, and uprooting them from their socio-cultural environment. 1.1 Provision of public facilities or infrastructure often requires the exercise of legal powers by the state under the principle of eminent domain for acquisition of private property, leading to involuntary displacement of people, depriving them of their land, livelihood and shelter; restricting their access to traditional resource base, and uprooting them from their socio-cultural environment. These have traumatic, psychological and sociocultural consequences on the affected population which call for protecting their rights, in particular of the weaker sections of the society including members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, marginal farmers and women. Involuntary displacement of people may be caused by other factors also. (emphasis supplied) 1.2 There is imperative need to recognise rehabilitation and resettlement issues as intrinsic to the development .process formulated with the active participation of the affected persons, rather than as externally-imposed requirements. Additional benefits beyond monetary compensation have to be provided to the families affected adversely by involuntary displacement. The plight of those who do not have legal or recognised rights over the land on which they are critically dependent for their subsistence is even worse. This calls for a broader concerted effort on the part of the planners to include in the displacement, rehabilitation and resettlement process framework not only those who directly lose land and other assets but also those who are affected by such acquisition of assets. The displacement process. often poses problems that make it difficult for the affected persons to continue their earlier livelihood activities after resettlement. This requires a careful assessment of the economic disadvantages and social impact of displacement. There must also be a holistic effort aimed at improving the all round living standards of the affected people. 1.3 A National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families was formulated in 2003, and it came into force w.e.f. February, 2004. Experience of implementation of this policy indicates that there are many issues addressed by the policy which need to be reviewed. There should be a clear perception, through a careful quantification of the costs and benefits that will accrue to society at large, of the desirability and justifiability of each project. .The adverse impact on affected families - economic, environmental, social and cultural- needs to be assessed in a participatory and transparent manner. A national policy must apply to all projects where involuntary displacement takes place. .The adverse impact on affected families - economic, environmental, social and cultural- needs to be assessed in a participatory and transparent manner. A national policy must apply to all projects where involuntary displacement takes place. 1.4 The aim should be to minimise large-scale displacement, as far as possible. Only the minimum area of land commensurate with the purpose of the project may be acquired. Also, as far as possible, projects may be set up on wasteland, degraded land or unirrigated land. Acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural use in the project may be kept to the minimum; multicropped land may be avoided to the extent possible for such 'purposes, and acquisition of irrigated land, if unavoidable, may be kept to the minimum. Prior to initiating the acquisition of land for a project, the appropriate. Government should, inter alia, take into consideration the alternatives that will (i) minimise the displacement of people due to the acquisition of land for the project; (ii) minimise the total area of land to be acquired for the project; and (iii) minimise the acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural use in the project. The options. assessment may be in terms of the alternative project plans, potentially suitable sites, technological choices available, or a combination of these. Suitable institutional mechanism should be developed and adopted by the appropriate Government for carrying out the task in a transparent manner. (emphasis supplied) 1.5 Where large numbers of families are affected, it must be mandatory to do social impact assessments and provide all required infrastructural facilities and amenities in the resettlement area. More particularly, where the Scheduled Tribes people are being displaced in sizeable numbers, a well thought out Tribal Development Plan must be put in place. 1.6 Furthermore, such a policy must specify clear time frames within which the implementation of the rehabilitation package as well as utilisation of the land shall be accomplished. Also, it should lay down an effective monitoring and grievance redressal mechanism. 1.7 It is acknowledged that many State Governments, Public Sector Undertakings or agencies, and other requiring bodies either have their own Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) policies or are in the process of formulating them. The provisions of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 (NRRP-2007) provide for the basic minimum requirements, and all projects leading to involuntary displacement of people must address the rehabilitation and resettlement issues comprehensively. The provisions of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 (NRRP-2007) provide for the basic minimum requirements, and all projects leading to involuntary displacement of people must address the rehabilitation and resettlement issues comprehensively. The State Governments, Public Sector Undertakings or agencies, and other requiring bodies shall be at liberty to put in place greater benefit levels than those prescribed in the NRRP-2007. The principles of this policy may also apply to the rehabilitation and resettlement of persons involuntarily displaced permanently due to any other reason. (emphasis supplied) 2. Objectives of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2.1 The objectives of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy are as follows:- (a) to minimise displacement and to promote,' as far as possible, nondisplacing or least-displacing alternatives; (b) to ensure adequate rehabilitation package and expeditious implementation of the rehabilitation process with the active participation of the affected families; (c) to ensure that special care is. taken for protecting the rights of the weaker sections of society, especially members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to create obligations on the State for their treatment with concern and sensitivity; (d) to provide a better standard of living, making concerted efforts for providing sustainable income to the affected families; (e) to integrate rehabilitation concerns into the development planning and implementation process; and (f) where displacement is on accouI)t of land acquisition, to facilitate harmonious relationship between the requiring body and affected families through mutual cooperation. (emphasis supplied) 3. Definitions 3.1 The definition of various expressions used in this policy are as follows: (a) .... (emphasis supplied) 3. Definitions 3.1 The definition of various expressions used in this policy are as follows: (a) .... (b) "affected family" means: (i) a family whose primary place of residence or other property or source of livelihood is adversely affected by the acquisition of land for a project or involuntary displacement for any other reason;or (ii) any tenure holder, tenant, lessee or owner of other property, who on account of acquisition of land (including plot in the abadi or other property) in the affected area or otherwise, has been involuntarily displaced from such land or other property; or - (iii) any agricultural or non-agricultural labourer, landless person (not having homestead land, agricultural land, or either homestead or agricultural land), rural artisan, small trader or selfemployed person; who has been residing or engaged in any trade, business, occupation or vocation continuously for a period of not less than three years preceding the date of declaration of the affected area, and who has been deprived of earning his livelihood or alienated wholly or substantially from the main source of his trade, business, occupation or vocation because of the acquisition of land in the affected area or being involuntarily displaced for any other reason;" (emphasis supplied) 53. It is relevant to mention here that no Administrator-cum-Commissioner for re-settlement and rehabilitation has not been appointed under the aforesaid Policy of 2004. 54. A reading of circular dated 27.10.2005 would reveal that the State Government has decided to give 20% residential and 5% commercial developed land in lieu of compensation. It is relevant to mention here that no Administrator-cum-Commissioner for re-settlement and rehabilitation has not been appointed under the aforesaid Policy of 2004. 54. A reading of circular dated 27.10.2005 would reveal that the State Government has decided to give 20% residential and 5% commercial developed land in lieu of compensation. Relevant portion of the order dated 27.10.2005 is as under: jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl foHkkx dzekad i0 6 29 ufo@3@2004 t;iqj] ifji= fnukad 27-10-2005 t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k@jktLFkku vkoklu e.My@uxj fodkl U;kl@LFkkuh; fudk;ksa dh ;kstukvksa ds fy, vkilh le>kSrs ls Hkwfe izkIr djus gsrq Hkwfe vokfIr ds izdj.kksa esa izfdz;k dks ljy djus rFkk vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe ij ;kstuk dk le; ij fdz;kUo;u gks lds] bl n`f"V ls Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkj }kjk Hkwfe ds fu'kqYd lefiZr djus ij eqvkots ds :i esa 15 izfr'kr fodflr vkoklh; Hkwfe fn;s tkus ds izko/kku fd;s x;sA orZeku esa Hkwfe dh dherksa esa gqbZ vR;f/kd o`f) ds dkj.k vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys 15 izfr'kr fodflr Hkwfe i;kZIr eqvkotk ugha ekurs gq, fdlkuksa }kjk blesa o`f) fd;s tkus dh fujUrj ekax dh tk jgh gSA bl laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk fopkj fd;k tkdj vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys eqvkots ds :i esa vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA vr% iwoZ esa tkjh leLr ifji=ksa@vkn'kksa dks vf/kdzfer djrs gq, fuEu fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa& 1---- 2- vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe ds cnys fodflr Hkwfe [kkrsnkj dh vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe esa ls ;k ml ;kstuk esa ftlds fy, Hkwfe vokIr dh tkuh gS] esa gh vkoaVu fd;k tk ldsxkA ;fn Hkwfe dk vkoaVu mlh Hkwfe@;kstuk esa laHko ugha gks rks vokIr 'kqnk Hkwfe dk udn eqvkotk ns; gksxkA 3- ;fn vokIr 'kqnk Hkwfe ds cnys vkoklh; Hkwfe dk vkoaVu mlh LFkku ij fd;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ dks fufeZr Hkou dk vyx ls eqvkotk ns; ugha gksxkA mlh ;kstuk esa fdlh vU; LFkku ij vkoklh; Hkwfe vkoafVr fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fufeZr Hkouksa dk vyx ls eqvkotk ns; gksxkA dqavk] o`{k bR;kfn dk eqvkotk ns; ugha gksxkA 4----- 5- Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1894 ( 1894 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la[;k 1 ) dh /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds i'pkr rFkk /kkjk 6 dh vf/klwpuk ds uksfVl tkjh djus ls iwoZ ftl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr Hkwfe vokIr dh tkuh gS mldk ekufp= lacaf/kr laLFkk }kjk jkT; ljdkj ,oa Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;k tkosxkA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk [kkrsnkjksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkosxk fd og udn eqvkots ds LFkku ij fodflr Hkwfe izkIr dj ldrs gSaA bl laca/k esa [kkrsnkj@HkwLokeh }kjk viuk fodYi izLrqr djuk gksxkA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk ekufp= [kkrsnkj@HkwLokeh dks voyksdu djk;k tkosxk] ftlls muds }kjk viuk fodYi nsus esa dfBukbZ u gksA 6- Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk eqvkots dh jkf'k ;k vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe esa ls ,d gh vfHk'kalk dj ldsxkA vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys fodflr Hkwfe fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa lacaf/kr laLFkk@LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk de ls de fuEu pkj vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vkoaVu lfefr xfBr dh tkosxhA (i) lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k@U;kl@LFkkuh; fudkl dk v/;{kA (ii) lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k@U;kl@LFkkuh; fudkl dk lfpoA (iii) lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k@U;kl@LFkkuh; fudkl dk foRrh; ,oa ys[kk 'kk[kk dk izeq[kA (iv) uxj fu;kstu foHkkx dk izfrfuf/kA 7- mDr lfefr vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe ds ewY; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vf/kdre 20 izfr'kr vkoklh; ,oa 5 izfr'kr O;olkf;d Hkwfe vkoaVu dh vuq'kalk dj ldsxhA vokIr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk ewY; mDrkuqlkj vkoaVu dh tkus okyh fodflr Hkwfe ds cktkj ewY; ds vf/kd gksus dh fLFkfr esa fodflr Hkwfe de dh tk ldsxhA mDr vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius vokMZ esa izko/kku fd;k tkosxkA vokMZ vuqeksnu gksus ij lacaf/kr laLFkk@LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk lacaf/kr laLFkk dh lfefr dh vfHk'kalk ds de ls izLrko rS;kj dj fodflr Hkwfe vkoaVu djus gsrq izdj.k Lohd`fr gsrq jkT; ljdkj dks fHktok;k tkosxkA 8- vokIr Hkwfe ds cnys [kkrsnkj@Hkw&Lokeh dks vkoafVr fodflr vkoklh; Hkwfe dk vkoaVu ds i'pkr izpfyr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr vkoaVh okf.kfT;d ;k vU; iz;kstukFkZ Hkw mi;ksx ifjorZu djk ldsxkA g0@& Mk0 yfyr ds0 iaokj izeq[k 'kklu lfpo " 55. A perusal of aforesaid Clause (5) of the Circular would reveal that option is to be exercised by the Khatedar for the same and further perusal of Clause (8) would reveal that the Khatedar is at liberty to get the residential land converted into commercial or for any other purpose which means he has to deposit the conversion charges. The reference of the Khatedar and Farmer in the said circular clearly reveals that the said policy has been made keeping in view the acquisition of the agricultural land mainly. In case of Gautam Estates, the major portion of the land has already been converted and conversion charges have been deposited and further in case of Nandan Green, not only the land has been converted but the same is fully developed and residential farm houses have been constructed. However, further reference of the constructed houses in Clause (3) reproduced above, and well and tree also appears to be of construction made on the agricultural land within the permissible limit. 56. However, before taking into consideration the said Policies, Section 11(2) as well as 31(3) of the Act of 1894 are to be interpreted with reference to the language of notifications under section 4 and 6, affidavit of the State dated 6.8.2008 and the judgments of the Supreme Court. 57. First, I would like to dispose of the two preliminary objections of locus standi and estop from re-agitating the issue of challenge to the notifications dated 20.12.05, 29.04.06 and 30.10.06. 58. As regards the first objection of locus standi that the petitioners are neither covered by the definition of 'person interested' under section 3(f) of the Act of 1894 nor they couldbe said to be 'person aggrieved' on account of the fact of selling the land prior to the acquisition. In reply to this submission,counsel for the petitioner submitted that the project of Nandan Green was a deemed project and is one of the highly developed green residential project and the petitioner being the developer and part of the present management are covered by the definition of 'person interested' as well as 'aggrieved person'. Otherwise also,name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 and therefore, the respondents are estopped from raising this submission. 59. The definition of 'person interested' as referred in Section 3(f), 18 and 49 etc. Otherwise also,name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 and therefore, the respondents are estopped from raising this submission. 59. The definition of 'person interested' as referred in Section 3(f), 18 and 49 etc. of the Act of 1894 has given wide meaning to the same for which clear title in favour of the person to file the writ petition is not necessary. 60. In Dr.G.H.Grant V. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 Supreme Court 237) ,the Supreme Court has not restricted the meaning of 'person interested' to the persons who have appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer for compensation. The same has been further extended keeping in view Section 30 according to which, reference could be made by a person raising dispute as to the apportionment or as to the person to whom compensation is payable. The said judgment was followed by the Gauhati High Court in a case reported in Thangba Kom V. The State of Manipur and others (AIR 1977 Gauhati 40), paras 5 and 6 of the same are reproduced as under: "5. Person interested" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Act as follows: "3(b) the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land." "Interested" within the meaning of Section 18, in our opinion, means 'admittedly interested' or believed or found by the Collector to be interested in the land. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.G.H.Grant V. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 237 have held: "There are two provisions, Sections 18(1) and 30, which invest the Collector with apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. By sub-section (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to the apportionment or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. By sub-section (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to the apportionment or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation is settled under Section 11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation, who is present either personally or through a representative, or on whom a notice is served under subsection (2) of Section 12, must if he does not accept the award, apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under Section 18(2) to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceeding before the Collector may, if he is not served with notice of the filing, raise a dispute as to the apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable, and apply to the Court for a reference under Section 30, for determination of his rights to compensation which may have existed before the award, or which may have devolved upon him since the award ....Again under section 18 the Collector is bound to make a reference on a petition filed by a person interested. The Collector is under Section 30 not enjoined to make a reference; he may relegate the person raising a dispute as to apportionment, or as to the person to whom compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute in a suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared by his award." 6. It therefore follows that a 'person interested' in the land acquired and the consequent award, can only apply under Section 18 of the Act. Who will prima facie decide whether the applicant is the person interested ? The answer is obviously the Collector. It therefore follows that a 'person interested' in the land acquired and the consequent award, can only apply under Section 18 of the Act. Who will prima facie decide whether the applicant is the person interested ? The answer is obviously the Collector. If the claimant's interest is disputed and the Collector is unable to decide or finds against him, the aggrieved claimant may make an application for reference under Section 30 of the Act, and not under Section 18, which requires the prima facie existence of interest of the claimant as a condition precedent to the application for reference. That being the position, in the instant case, as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Collector, rightly or wrongly, as early as 10.4.1973 and that order not having been moved against by the petitioner, his application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in our opinion, is incompetent, and as such the learned Collector has committed no error in refusing to make the reference." 61. Earlier to it, the Calcutta High Court while considering the definition of 'owner' for the purpose of Section 49 of the Act of 1894 has held that a proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant, sub tenant are all 'owner' for the purpose of Section 49 in Krishna Das Roy V. Land Acquisition Collector of Pabna (1912 (13 Indian Cases 470 = 1911 (16) Calcutta Law Journal 165. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment at page 471 is as under: "The word 'owner' is not defined in the Act, but an owner must be declared to be one of the persons interested in the land being acquired (see section 3(6) of Act 1 of 1894). Reading section 10 of the Act we think that the proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee,tenant or sub-tenant are all owners for the purpose of section 49. The petitioner is an under-tenant of some kind. He is, therefore, admittedly interested in the acquisition of the land, which for the purposes of section 49, until the Civil Court finds otherwise, may be presumed to be part of his salt godown. (emphasis supplied)The question for inquiry will be whether the piece of land in front of the godown forms the only means of approach to that godown or is reasonably necessary for the proper working of the salt business. (emphasis supplied)The question for inquiry will be whether the piece of land in front of the godown forms the only means of approach to that godown or is reasonably necessary for the proper working of the salt business. We,therefore, think that the petitioner was competent to apply under section 49 for a reference to the Civil Court." 62. The respondents, who are throughout treating the petitioners as 'person interested' and 'person aggrieved' by referring their names in the notifications/notices issued under section 4, 5A and 6 of the Act of 1894, are estopped from raising the aforesaid submission after completion of the acquisition proceedings. Otherwise also, being developers and involved in the management of the said land in question, the petitioners are covered by the definition of 'person interested', as referred and discussed hereinabove with reference to Section 3 (f), 18 and 49 of the Act of 1894. 63. The question of public purpose is no more open for discussion in view of the Division Bench judgment in Mohan Lal reproduced hereinabove and the same has been concluded. However, issue of violation of Section 5A and appropriate order under section 48 of the Act of 1894 was not before the Division Bench in Mohan Lal (supra) therefore, the same is open to be considered and decided in these cases. 64. Before discussing the legal issue of violation of Section 5A of the Act of 1894, which according to the petitioners is mandatory,it need be mentioned here that on receipt of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer under section 5-A of the Act of 1894, the present matter was processed in general and Nandan Green in particular. On the Note sheets of File No.F.6 (28)UD/3/2005 from Paras 71/N to 102/N wherein it has been mentioned that 26 objections have been received in which names of the person interested have not been mentioned in the current Jamabandi; eight objections of ownership of the land have also been received and further, the dispute regarding seven objections are pending in the court which would be decided at the time of Award taking into consideration the dispute and the reference proceedings. 22 objections have been dealt with wherein there is no specific reference of Gautam Estates. 22 objections have been dealt with wherein there is no specific reference of Gautam Estates. However, considering the objections of Nandan Green in Paras 90/N to 99/N, the notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued thereafter on 29.4.2006 wherein the land of Nandan Green was not included. The case of Nandan Green has been further dealt with at the Government level from Paras 100/N to 141/N but there is no specific decision on the said issue at the Government level before issuance of the notification dated 30.10.2006. The case of Nandan Green has been further dealt with at the Government level from Paras 100/N to 141/N but there is no specific decision on the said issue at the Government level before issuance of the notification dated 30.10.2006. Paras 100, 101, 125, 126, 127, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141/N are as follows: In Nandan Greens 100- d`I;k iSjk la[;k&89@,u ls voyksdu djsaA iSjk la[;k&95@,u ,oa 96@,u esa of.kZr uUnu xzhe gkmlst fyfeVsM ds izdj.k ds vykok 'ks"k lHkh izdj.kksa esa Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk O;Dr jk; ds vuqlkj Hkwfe vokfIr gsrq /kkjk&6 ds vUrxZr vf/klwpuk tkjh fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 101- tgka rd iSjk la[;k&95@,u ,oa 96@,u esa of.kZr uUnu xzhu gkmlst fyfeVsM ds izdj.k dk lEcU/k gS] Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh us bl izdj.k esa dksbZ Li"V jk; O;Dr ugha dh gS fd bl Hkwfe dks vokIr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxk vFkok vokfIr ds eqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA of.kZr rF;ksa@ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ifjis{; esa bl izdj.k esa fu.kZ; jkT; ljdkj ds Lrj ij gh fy;k tkuk gksxkA ysfdu of.kZr rF;ksa@ifjLFkfr;ksa ds ifjis{; esa ;g mfpr gksxk fd bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; ysus ls iwoZ bl izdj.k ds ckjs esa t;iqj fodkl vk;qDr] Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh rFkk tsMh, ds lEcfU/kr tksuy vf/kdkjh ls ppkZ djyh tkosA izcU/k funs'kd fjdks dks Hkh ppkZ esa lfEefyr fd;k tkuk mfpr jgsxkA ,lMh@& v'kksd lEir jke 28-4-2006 izeq[k] lfpo] uxjh; fodkl 125- Jheku ds ek/;e ls tsMh, dk tks rF;kRed uksV izkIr gqvk gS mlesa Hkh mYys[k gS fd uUnu xzhu dh 6-86 gS] esa ls 5900 oxZehVj Hkwfe dk lu 97 esa ,lMhvks 11 t;iqj }kjk laifjorZu fd;k x;kA mlesa ls Hkh 1900 oxZeh0 dk okf.kT;d :ikUrj.k ,lMhvks&1 t;iqj }kjk dj fn;k x;k gS blds 'ks"k Hkkx dh 90 ch ds rgr dk;Zokgh tsMh, }kjk dh tk ldh pqdh gS rFkk QkeZ gkml dk uD'kk vuqeksnu Hkh gks pqdk gS ekSds ij {ks= dk fofHkUu fLFkfr;ksa esa fodkl Hkh gks pqdk gSA 126- iz'uxr Hkwfe dks /kkjk&4 ds rgr vokfIr vf/klwpuk esa 'kkfey fd;k x;k FkkA fdUrq /kkjk&6 dh vf/klwpuk esa 'kkfey ugha fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk i`Fkd ls fopkj dj fu.kZ; gsrq yfEcr gSA Kkiu esa mDr {ks= dks vokfIr ls eqDr j[kus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS tks mPp Lrj ij fu.kZ; gsrq izLrqr gSA ,lMh@& 5-7-2006 PS/UDH 127- iSjk 102@,u esa lanfHkZr eqn~ns ij eSaus M.D. RIICO Jh dqynhi jkadk ls ppkZ dh mudh jk; ;g gS fd uUnu xzhu ifjlj dh vko';drk S.E.Z. gsrq ugha gS D;ksafd vf/kdka'k tehu ij o`gn fuekZ.k gks pqdh gSA fQj Hkh bl elys ij foLrkj ls fopkj djds rFkk iSjk&102@,u esa lanfHkZr ek0 ea=h egksn; ds funsZ'kksa ds vuq:i rFkk iSjk&112@,u esa mYysf[kr eq[; lfpo egksn; dh fVIi.kh ds dze esa ;g vko';d gS fd bl elys ij foLrkj ls fopkj djds ,d cSBd leLr rF;ksa ds fo'ys"k.k ds ckn ,d O;ogkfjd ,oa rdZlaxr fu.kZ; fy;k tk,A 137- d`I;k izkIr fopkjk/khu i= dk voyksdu i`"B 718lh ij djsaA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh tfoizk us i= fy[kdj Lis'ky bdksuksfed tksu gsrq tkjh 6 dh vf/klwpuk ls 'ks"k jgs uUnu xzhu QkeZ gkml ds xzke cx: [kqnZ ds [kljk uEcjku dh /kkjk&6 dh vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu fd;k gSA d`I;k i=koyh dk vuq0 128@,u ls fujUrj voyksdu djs voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA Sd/- 16/10/06ALR 138- d`I;k Vhi@37 dk voyksdu djsaA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh us xzke cx: [kqnZ ds dqN [kljk uEcj ds ckjs esa dk;Zokgh jkT; ljdkj ds Lrj ij crkrs gq, fu.kZ; ls voxr djus ds fy, fy[kk gSA izdj.k esa izdk'ku dh vfUre frfFk 2-2-06 gksus ds dkj.k ,d o"kZ 1-2-07 rd fu.kZ; fy;s tkus gsrq fy[kk gSA 139- Vhi@127 ls 129 voyksduh; gSA izdj.k esa vafre fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk 'ks"k gSA vr% i=koyh voyksdukFkZ ,oa fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrqr gSA Sd/- DS II 140- d`I;k voyksdu djsa iSjk 138 ,oa 139@,u 129@,u ds vuq:i esa i=koyh vkxkeh funsZ'k gsrq iqu% izLrqr gSA Sd/- 16.10.06PS-UDHM/UD 141- /kkjk&6 dh dk;Zokgh djsaA Sd/- 17.10.2006" (emphasis supplied) 65. In the entire record of acquisition proceedings, there is no mention of the fact of acquisition of the land more than the actual requirement for SEZ for allotment of the same to the expropriated owner. 66. In the order sheet dated 17.9.1008, in point No.1, the respondents were asked to clarify when notice of personal hearing under section 5A of the Act of 1894 was issued to Gautam Estates and when personal hearing took place but in the affidavit filed on 22.9.2008 no specific reply to the said issue has been given. Further in point No.2 of the order sheet dated 17.9.2008, the respondents were asked to clarify when the objections of Nandan Greens were deiced but from the record as well as subsequent affidavits, it is clear that neither notice of personal hearing was given to Gautam Estate nor the objections of Nandan Green were decided by the Land Acquisition Officer nor by the Government. Thus, section 5A of the Act of 1894 has been violated in these cases. In normal course, the consequence of the same is that the acquisition proceedings are to be re-started from the stage of Section 5A of the Act of 1984 but exceptionally in this case, the issue involved is of larger public interest of establishment of SEZ and small piece of land belonging to the petitioners in the capacity detailed out hereinabove, and further observations of the Supreme court in Om Prakash and another V. State of UP and others (1998)8 SCC 1 ) in para 30, where the invocation of urgency clause was held to be invalid but still the Supreme Court has considered the development of the project of NOIDA and did not interfere with the acquisition proceedings and allowed the respondents to file representation under section 48 of the Act of 1894 for withdrawal of the acquisition by raising objection to the suitability of land and policy of the government. Para 30 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: "30.Now remains the vital question as to whether in the light of our finding on point No. 1 the notification under Section 4(1) so far as it dispenses with Section 5-A inquiry by invoking powers under Section 17 (4) of the Act and the consequential notification under Section 6 are required to be set aside or not. We must keep in view that we are called upon to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the constitution of India. Such jurisdiction will necessarily have to be exercised in the light of facts and circumstances of these cases. Section 4 notification in the present cases is dated 5th January 1991. It is followed by Section 6 notification dated 7th January 1992. In between the appellants went to the High Court and got status quo order since 31st March 1992. Result is that till today even after the expiry of 6 years and more, the land acquisition proceedings qua the appellants' lands have remained stagnant. It is also to be kept in view that the impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued for the purpose of planned development of District Ghaziabad through NOIDA and by the said notification, 496 acres of land spread over hundreds of plot numbers have been acquired. Out of 494.26 acres of land under acquisition, only the present appellants owning about 50 acres, making a grievance about acquisition of their lands have gone to the court. Thus, almost 9/10th of the acquired lands have stood validly acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and only dispute centers round 1/10th of these acquired lands owned by the present appellants. It is a comprehensive project for the further planned development in the district. We are informed by learned senior counsel Shri Mohta for NOIDA,that a lot of construction work has been done on the undisputed land under acquisition and pipelines and other infrastructure have been put up. That the disputed lands belonging to the appellants may have stray complex of lands sought to be acquired. That if notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (4) is set aside qua these pockets of lands then the entire development activity in the complex will come to a grinding halt and that would not be in the interest of anyone. It was also contended by learned senior counsel for the respondents that it was not the appellants' contention that the proposed acquisition was not for public purpose nor any mala fides were alleged to the behind such acquisition. learned senior counsel, Shri Shanti Bhushan, fairly stated that though the appellants might have mounted a challenge on the ground of mala fides, they have not done so before the High Court nor before this Court. learned senior counsel, Shri Shanti Bhushan, fairly stated that though the appellants might have mounted a challenge on the ground of mala fides, they have not done so before the High Court nor before this Court. Under these circumstances, we find considerable force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the respondent that it is neither advisable nor feasible to interfere with the acquisition of such large tracts of lands when the occupants of 9/10th of the acquired lands have not thought it fit to challenge these acquisition proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10th of lands are agitating there grievance since more than six years firstly before the High court and then before this Court. The appellants' main grievance centers round the question whether their lands having alleged abadi could be acquired in the light of the State policy for not acquiring such lands. For such a contention, of course, grievance could have been made under Section 5-A inquiry if it was held. But that could have been urged years back before Section 6 notification saw the light of the day in 1992. Now after a passage of more than six years, it would not be feasible to put the clock back and permit the appellants to agitate this contention which appears to be the sole contention for opposing the acquisition proceedings in the facts of the present cases by permitting them to urge this grievance in Section 5-A inquiry which according to them should be held at this stage. We will show presently that this solitary grievance of the appellants could be vindicated before the State authorities themselves by relegating the appellants to proper remedy by way of representation under Section 48 of the Act and when that remedy is available to the appellants and when that is the sold grievance of the appellants, at this stage no useful purpose would be served by striking down the notification under Section 4(1) qua the appellants so far as invocation of Section 17 (4) is concerned and the consequent notification under Section 6. That we cannot permit upsetting the entire apple cart of acquisition of 500 acres only at the behest of 1/10th of land owners whose lands are sought to be acquired. We may also keep in view the further alien fact that all the appellants have filed reference for additional compensation under Section 18 of the Act. That we cannot permit upsetting the entire apple cart of acquisition of 500 acres only at the behest of 1/10th of land owners whose lands are sought to be acquired. We may also keep in view the further alien fact that all the appellants have filed reference for additional compensation under Section 18 of the Act. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, was right when he contended that the appellants could not have taken the risk of getting their reference applications time barred during the pendency of these proceedings. Therefore, without prejudice to their contentions in the present proceedings they have filed such references. Be that as it may, that shows that an award is also made and reference are pending. Under these circumstances for enabling the appellants to have their say regarding release of their lands on the ground that they are having abadi and that the State Policy helps them in this connection the appellants can be permitted to have their grievances voiced before the State authorities under Section 48 rather than under Section 5-A of the Act at such a late stage. Consequently, despite our finding in favour of the appellants on Point No. 1, we do not think that this is a fit case to set aside the acquisition proceedings on the plea of the appellants about noncompliance with Section 5-A at this late stage. It is also obvious that if on this point the notifications are quashed for non-compliance of Section 5- A, that would open a pandora's box and those occupants who are uptill now sitting on the fence may also get a hint to file further proceedings on the ground of discriminatory treatment by the State authorities. All these complications are required to be avoided and hence while considering the question of exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we do not think that this is a fit case for interference in the present proceedings with the impugned notifications. Point No. 3, therefore, is answered in the affirmative against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. (emphasis supplied)Point No. 4 31.Now remains the moot question as to what proper orders can be passed in the present proceedings in the light of our findings on the aforesaid points. Point No. 3, therefore, is answered in the affirmative against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. (emphasis supplied)Point No. 4 31.Now remains the moot question as to what proper orders can be passed in the present proceedings in the light of our findings on the aforesaid points. We have already noted that the real and the only contention of the appellants for effectively challenging the acquisition proceedings is that because their lands are having abadi they are covered by the existing state policy for into acquiring such lands under the Act. Whether these lands are having abadi or not is a vexed question of fact which we have kept open for consideration of appropriate authorities instead of relegating the appellants to the remedy under Section 5-A of the Act. We deem it fit to relegate the appellants to the remedy by way of suitable representation before the appropriate state authorities under Section 48 of the Act. " (emphasis supplied) 67. Submission of Mr.Anil Mehta, counsel for the petitioner in Gautam Estate, that on account of not forming any Scheme by the JDA and subsequent handing over of the land to the RIICO, which is a Company, provisions of Chapter VII of the Act of 1894 have not been followed, has no force as the proceedings have been initiated for establishment of SEZ under the Rajasthan Special Economic Zones Development Act, 2003 and further continued under the Central Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 which has over riding effect and which permit the development of the SEZ by the developer. 68. Apart from above, the Supreme Court in a case reported in Pratibha Nema V. State of MP ( 2003(10) SCC 626 ) in paras 21, 22, 23 as well as in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 120 has held that mere fact that the acquisition is being carried out for the purpose of a Company cannot preclude the State Government from acquiring the land for public purpose. Paras 21, 22 and 23 of the aforesaid judgment in 2003(10) SCC 626 are as follows: "21.'Company' is defined to mean by Section 3(e) as (i) a Company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act other than Government Company, (ii) a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act other than a Co-operative Society referred to in clause (cc) and (iii) a Co-operative Society governed by the law relating to the Co-operative Societies in force in any State other than a Co-operative Society referred to in clause (cc). An industrial concern employing not less than 100 workmen and conforming to the other requirements specified in Section 38-A is also deemed to be a Company for the purposes of Part VII. In order to acquire land for a Company as defined above, the previous consent of the appropriate Government is the first requirement and secondly the execution of agreement by the Company conforming to the requirements of Section 41 is another essential formality. Section 40 enjoins that consent should not be given by the appropriate Government unless it is satisfied that (1) the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for erection of dwelling houses for workmen or for the provision of amenities connected therewith; (2) that the acquisition is needed for construction of some building or work for a Company which is engaged or about to engage itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose; and (3) that the proposed acquisition is for the construction of some work that is likely to be useful to the public. The agreement contemplated by Section 41 is meant to ensure the compliance with these essentialities. It is also meant to ensure that the entire cost of acquisition is borne by and paid to the Government by the Company concerned. Thus, it is seen that even in a case of acquisition for a Company, public purpose is not eschewed. It follows, therefore, that the existence or non-existence of a public purpose is not a primary distinguishing factor between the acquisition under Part II and acquisition under Part VII. The real point of distinction seems to be the source of funds to cover the cost of acquisition. In other words, the second proviso to Section 6(1) is the main dividing ground for the two types of acquisition. The real point of distinction seems to be the source of funds to cover the cost of acquisition. In other words, the second proviso to Section 6(1) is the main dividing ground for the two types of acquisition. This point has been stressed by this Court in Srinivasa Co-operative House Building Society Limited Vs. Madam G. Sastry [(1994) 4 SCC Page 675] at paragraph 12: "...In the case of an acquisition for a company simpliciter, the declaration cannot be made without satisfying the requirements of Part VII. But that does not necessarily mean that an acquisition for a company for a public purpose cannot be made otherwise than under the provisions of Part VII, if the cost or a portion of the cost of the acquisition is to come out of public funds. In other words, the essential condition for acquisition is for a public purpose and that the cost of acquisition should be borne, wholly or in part, out of public funds..." (emphasis supplied) The legal position has been neatly and succinctly stated by Wanchoo, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench in R.L.Arora Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR (1962) SC Page 764] . This is what has been said: "Therefore, though the words 'public purpose' in Sections 4 and 6 have the same meaning, they have to be read in the restricted sense in accordance with Section 40 when the acquisition is for a company under Section 6. In one case, the notification under Section 6 will say that the acquisition is for a public purpose, in the other case the notification will say that it is for a company. The proviso to Section 6(1) shows that where the acquisition is for a public purpose, the compensation has to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Where however the acquisition is for a company, the compensation would be paid wholly by the company. Though, therefore, this distinction is there where the acquisition is either for a public purpose or for a company, there is not a complete dichotomy between acquisitions for the two purposes and it cannot be maintained that where the acquisition is primarily for a company it must always be preceded by action under Part VII and compensation must always be paid wholly by the company. A third class of cases is possible where the acquisition may be primarily for a company but it may also be at the same time for a public purpose and the whole or part of compensation may be paid out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. In such a case though the acquisiton may look as if it is primarily for a company it will be covered by that part of Section 6 which lays down that acquisition may be made for a public purpose if the whole part of the compensation is to be paid out of the public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Such was the case in Pandit Jhandu Lal v. State of Punjab [AIR (1961) SC 343] . .....It is only where the acquisition is for a company and its cost is to be met entirely by the company itself that the provisions of Part VII apply. 22. Thus the distinction between public purpose acquisition and Part VII acquisition has got blurred under the impact of judicial interpretation of relevant provisions. The main and perhaps the decisive distinction lies in the fact whether cost of acquisition comes out of public funds wholly or partly. Here again, even a token or nominal contribution by the Government was held to be sufficient compliance with the second proviso to Section 6 as held in a catena of decisions. The net result is that by contributing even a trifling sum, the character and pattern of acquisition could be changed by the Government. In ultimate analysis, what is considered to be an acquisition for facilitating the setting up of an industry in private sector could get imbued with the character of public purpose acquisition if only the Government comes forward to sanction the payment of a nominal sum towards compensation. In the present state of law, that seems to be the real position. (emphasis supplied) 33.We are of the view that none of the factors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants make any dent on the orientation towards public purpose nor do they establish that the acquisition was resorted to by the Government to achieve oblique ends. In the present state of law, that seems to be the real position. (emphasis supplied) 33.We are of the view that none of the factors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants make any dent on the orientation towards public purpose nor do they establish that the acquisition was resorted to by the Government to achieve oblique ends. The speed at which the proposal was pursued should be appreciated rather than condemning it, though the overzealousness on the part of authorities concerned to short-circuit the procedure has turned out to be counter-productive. True, the tardy progress of acquisition would have sent wrong signals to the prospective investors, as contended by the learned Advocate-General. However, due attention should have been given to the legal formalities such as holding of enquiry, specification of public purpose in clear terms and giving sufficient indication of State meeting the cost of acquisition wholly or in part. At the same time, we cannot read mala fides in between the lines; in fact, no personal malice or ulterior motives have been attributed to the Chief Minister or to any other official. The material placed before us do not lead to the necessary or even reasonable conclusion that the Government machinery identified itself with the private interests of the Company, forsaking public interest. Public purpose does not cease to be so merely because the acquisition facilitates the setting up of industry by a private enterprise and benefits it to that extent. Nor the existence or otherwise of public purpose be judged by the lead and initiative taken by the entrepreneurs desirous of setting up the industry and the measure of coordination between them and various state agencies. The fact that despite the unwillingness expressed by AKI Ltd., to go ahead with the project, the Government is still interested in acquisition is yet another pointer that the acquisition was motivated by public purpose." (emphasis supplied) 69. Mr.Bharat Vyas, Addl. AG stated that out of the total land under acquisition, measuring 1447.03 Hectares, land of Nandan Green is 6.86 Hectares (which is 0.32% of the total land) and that of Gautam Estaets is 42.66 Hectares which is 1.99% of the total area, thus land of the petitioners is only 2.32% of the total land under acquisition. Thus, it is very small pocket of land. Thus, it is very small pocket of land. That most of the Khatedars of land have accepted compensation and have not challenged the acquisition. Some of them have challenged and subsequently withdrawn from acquisition and further accepted compensation. The development projects have also been started and many others are about to be started, hence, at this stage, to put the clock back at the stage of hearing of objection under section 5-A of the Act of 1894 will not be in the public interest. But still, the respondents which have not complied with Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and further not considered the issue of acquisition of converted land and fully developed farm house land is essential, appears to be not exercised the power as per law and Policies, therefore, the same is required to be considered while considering the case for deacquisition. 70. In the Award dated 4.7.2007, the person(s) claiming interest in the land in question, through the petitioner, which is the developer, have exercised option for 25% land as per the Government circular dated 27.10.2005 without protest or under protest and in the Award dated 4.7.2007, there are references of some of the writ petitions also in case of the land of both the writ petitions, which is subsequent to the filing of both the writ petitions. However, there is no finding on the issue of consideration of the grant of equivalent converted Abadi land from the Government land in view of the aforesaid Policy and Section 11(2) and 31 (3) of the Act of 1894. Both the writ petitions have been filed on 21.8.2006 and 15.12.2006 before passing of the Award dated 4.7.2007 and therefore, the Award dated 4.7.2007, which has been passed during the pendency of the proceedings, is subject to the decision of the writ petitions so far as it relates to the non-receipt of compensation/land in lieu of compensation/receipt of same under protest by the petitioner or by the person claiming their interest through the petitioners. 71. 71. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash (supra) and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal Sharma (supra) relating to the acquisition of same land and not to disturb the entire development project in case of challenge to the acquisition of small piece of land, discussion of each and every judgment cited by the counsel for the parties will burden the judgment as the settled principleson the issue laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court have been dealt with extensively. Keeping in view the national importance of the SEZ project implemented by the State in greater public interest and the law enunciated on the similar and same subject by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court,and for the reasons stated hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. 72. Mr.Paras Kuhad has also relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Ravi Khullar and another V. Union of India and others (2007) 5 SCC 231 ) on the issue of re-settlement which is permissible under the Act of 1894. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court in paras 29, 44 and 45 has held that allotment of alternate land in lieu of land acquired cannot be directed by the court in absence of any scheme promulgated by the government. In the said case, Section 11(2) and 31(3) and 31(4) of the Act of 1894 have not been discussed. However, the fact of use of the land by the Government for one public purpose to another public purpose has been discussed and it was held that the Government can switch over another public purpose but still,in my view, while giving effect to the Policy of 2004 and 2007 apart from the beneficial provision,Sec.31(3) and 31(4) of the Act of 1894 is required to be considered to the extent that the allotment of Government land in lieu of compensation can be made which is signified by the word 'grant' but the said point has also not been considered by the respondents. 73. 73. The aim and object of the Policy of 2004 and 2007 is to rehabilitate the expropriated person but in none of the aims and objects of the policies nor any other provision of the law, quoted hereinabove, acquisition is permissible to displace the settled person by acquiring their land in order to settle the expropriated owner at their cost as the same would further result in un-settlement but the said aspect was not considered in Nandan Green writ petition. 74. A conjoint reading of the Resettlement Policy of 2004, circular of the State Government dated 27.10.2005 and the Resettlement Policy, 2007, more particularly Point No. 1.4 of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007. would reveal that for the development of SEZ, waste land, degraded land or un-irrigated land is to be acquired and acquisition of agricultural land for non agricultural use in the project may be kept to the minimum; multi crop land may be avoided to the extent possible for such purpose and acquisition of irrigated land if unavoidable may be kept to the minimum The said fact further finds support from the Government circular dated 27.10.2005 wherein the words 'Khatedar' and 'farmer' have been used which clearly mean that the agricultural land is to be acquired which is to be read with the Settlement Policy of 2007. Nowhere in the said Policy, the converted Abadi land is to be acquired. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents. 75. In Gautam Estates, some part of the land is already converted into Abadi and the same was in the process of development for residential/commercial purpose. 76. Apart from above, the policy has been framed to minimise acquisition of the agricultural land for non-agricultural use. Further, the Abadi land wherein the process of framing the residential scheme/commercial is going on, is also to be avoided and even if the same is required in larger public interest, then, the Government should consider the grant of Government Abadi land in lieu of compensation with the consent of the parties and for which also, the circular dated 27.10.2005 of giving 20%+5% land will not apply as the same relates to the acquisition of agricultural land. 77. 77. The petitioners in Gautam Estate have submitted that the major part of their land was converted into Abadi; the development was started but the Gram Panchayat stopped the same whereas in Nandan Green,it has been stated that not only their land was converted but the farm houses have also been constructed and other development work has taken place. In the case of Gautam Estates no notice of personal hearing was issued to satisfy the Land Acquisition Officer on the issue - (i) that the land is Abadi land; (ii) that the petitioner is in the process of developing the same; and (iii) that the acquisition of such kind of land will not hamper establishment of the SEZ and even if the land is taken then they may be given an opportunity to opt for any other part of the Government land situated nearby which may be given to them in exchange after converting the same in Abadi. In Nandan Green, it has been finally submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has abrogated his authority by not deciding the objections and the State Government has acted illegally in either not remanding the matter back to the Land Acquisition Officer or decide the same itself in the process of approval, therefore, the following issues which were not decided by the State Government under section 5A of the Act of 1894 are now required to be considered under section 48 of the Act of 1894 in the instant writ petitions - (i)In Nandan Greens, no award has been passed and the issue of de-acquisition is still open for the reason that on the land in question, buildings/farm houses have been constructed and persons are residing. (ii)The land is surplus to the requirement of the SEZ. (iii)The land will not come in the way of establishment of the SEZ and allotment of the same to the expropriated owner, after dislodging Nandan Greens and persons claiming interest through it, will not amount to rehabilitation because rehabilitation does not mean that the person who is already settled there be dislodged for settling others. (iv)The possession of the land in these cases is with the petitioners on account of the interim order dated 19.12.2006 passed by this Court. (iv)The possession of the land in these cases is with the petitioners on account of the interim order dated 19.12.2006 passed by this Court. In Gautam Estates (i)No opportunity of hearing under section 5A of the Act of 1894 was given therefore, the main issue of not to acquire the converted residential land has not been properly considered. According to the Rehabilitation Policy of 2004 and 2007, even acquisition of the agricultural land is to be minimised and for such projects, waste land, degraded land or un-irrigated land is to be acquired and the acquisition of agricultural land for non agricultural use in the Project may be kept to the minimum; multi crop land may be avoided to the extent it is possible for such purpose and acquisition of irrigated land, if unavoidable,may be kept to the minimum. Therefore, the aforesaid issues be considered by the Committee constituted hereunder. (ii) In case the acquisition of converted land is absolutely essential then for the converted land and further constructions made thereon, the Committee will consider the issue for framing separate policy for allotment of land and decide for allotment of Government Abadi/commercial land in nearby area of equivalent or somewhat less than converted land under acquisition for the reason that the converted residential agricultural land is much more valuable than agricultural land, therefore, it cannot be equated with the agricultural land; keeping in view the market value of the converted land and buildings constructed thereon sought to be acquired. (iii) the issue of discrimination of exclusion of land of Omax City will also be decided by the aforesaid Committee; 78. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: (i) In view of the above, I do not want to interfere with the three impugned notifications dated 20.12.2005, 29.4.2006 and 30.10.2006; (ii) A three Members committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, with other two members -the Principal Secretary to Govt. Urban Development Housing Deptt. and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Rajasthan, with other two members -the Principal Secretary to Govt. Urban Development Housing Deptt. and Principal Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department shall be constituted; (iii) In case, the petitioners submit representations before the aforesaid Committee within a period of fifteen days from today for de-acquisition of their respective lands under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, then the respondents will pass appropriate orders within one month and a half thereafter, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and to allow them to produce the documents and to further substantiate the same by making oral arguments, either themselves or through their respective counsel. Till the representations are decided, status quo as it exists today, with regard to the land in question, shall be maintained. (iv) The respondents J.D.A., RIICO and Mahendra World City will be at liberty to appear and make their submissions before the aforesaid Committee; (v) in the light of the aforesaid discussions the respondents will consider whether the land/buildings in question is essentially required for implementation of the SEZ Project, if not, then they will consider the case for de-acquisition; and if so, then, they will grant the land in lieu of compensation after allowing the petitioners an opportunity to file options for grant of converted Government Abadi land in nearby area which shall be much more than the circular dated 27.10.2005 which is applicable to the undeveloped agricultural land. (vi) The respondents shall consider Section 11 (2), 31(3) and (4) of the Act of 1894 and further keep in view the Resettlement Policy, 2004, 2007 and the circular dated 27.10.2005 for allotment of land in lieu of compensation for the agricultural land. (vii)In the case of Gautam Estates, the respondents will ascertain how much land was converted in Abadi and further was in the process of development which was stopped on account of initiation of the acquisition proceedings; (viii) the issue of discrimination of exclusion of land of Omax City will also be decided by the aforesaid Committee; (ix) No order as to costs. Petition Disposed Of. *******