Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2495 (RAJ)

Income Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

2009-12-04

GOVIND MATHUR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - These petitions for writ are preferred to assail validity of the notification dated 25.7.2006 issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") and also the declaration dated 6.8.2007 made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. A prayer is also made to quash the award dated 10.7.2008 declared as a consequent to land acquisition proceedings held in pursuant to the notifications referred above. A direction is also sought to de-acquire the land under khatedari of the petitioners from the acquisition proceedings. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of present petitions are that respondent (RIICO) had established an Industrial area situated in Bhiwadi (district Alwar) for which, hundreds of applications seeking allotment of industrial area were filed by persons interested in establishing industries in Bhiwadi, which were pending consideration; so taking note of large public interest to get investments in the State and to provide opportunity c f employment to people, a proposal was sent by respondent (RIICO) to the State Government on 06.07.2006 for development of industrial area in three revenue villages (1) Khijarpur-Bilahera, (2) Kahrani and (3) Mundana of Tehsil Tijara, district Alwar. Taking note whereof, appropriate Govt. issued preliminary notification dated 25.7.2006 U/s 4 of the Act which was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 28.7.2006 while in daily news papers Rajasthan Patrika & Sandhya Jyoti Darpan dated 30.7.2006; and substance of notification was also affixed at conspicuous places in the locality as alleged by respondents on 8.8.2006 intending to acquire land measuring 483.84 hectares; which has seriously been disputed by petitioners and would be considered in later part of this judgment. However, by publication of notification u/S 4 of the Act, objections were invited from persons interested - in pursuance whereof, 141 objectors claiming themselves as persons interested in the land sought to be acquired u/S. 4(1) for public purposes submitted their objections within time stipulated u/S. 5A(1). However, by publication of notification u/S 4 of the Act, objections were invited from persons interested - in pursuance whereof, 141 objectors claiming themselves as persons interested in the land sought to be acquired u/S. 4(1) for public purposes submitted their objections within time stipulated u/S. 5A(1). After more than ten months, notice was published in daily newspaper, Alwar Dainik Bhaskar dated 24.6.2007 at the instance of Regional Manager RIICO that public hearing in regard to proceedings initiated for acquisition of the land measuring 483.84 hectares would take place on 25.6.2007 in the office of RIICO, Camp at Bhiwadi and persons/objectors who filed their objections to acquisition proceedings may appear in course of public hearing on 25.6.2007 in between 10 A.M. to 5 PM. 3. However, Land Acquisition Officer ("LAO") in order sheet of 25.6.2007 recorded that objections were submitted by persons interested during public hearing provided u/S. 5A(2) and after holding further inquiry, submitted report dated 24.7.2007 recommending acquisition of proposed land notified u/S. 4(1) of the Act except for some area where temples, mosque & Gurdwara besides large number of houses were situated, which the RIICO, itself declined for acquisition. 4. After considering recommendations made by LAO, State Government made declaration u/S. 6 of the Act on 6.8.2007 for the land measuring 470.0067 hectares, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 10.8.2007 and so also in daily newspapers-Rajasthan Patrika & Arun Prabha on 9.8.2007, whereas declaration was affixed at conspicuous places of locality on 16.8.2007. 5. The LAO after issuance of notice to persons interested u/S. 9 of the Act, sent the Award to the State Government for its approval on 13.6.2008 and taking note whereof on 10.7.2008., State Government approved the Award for compensation made by LAO for Rs. 4,79,49,35,512/- and on the date of its approval by State Government, the LAO issued notification dated 8.8.2007. 6. These petitions for writ were admitted by this Court and as an interim measure the respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute. 7. A detailed reply is filed by respondent Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., however, in a short reply the State Government stated that questions of facts and questions of law involved in these dbtitions are similar to the facts and questions of law in following cases- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10648/2007, Phulu & Ors. v. State & Ors. 7. A detailed reply is filed by respondent Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., however, in a short reply the State Government stated that questions of facts and questions of law involved in these dbtitions are similar to the facts and questions of law in following cases- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10648/2007, Phulu & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7103/2007, Sumer Khan & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9108/2007, Shyam Lai & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2746/2007, Mahesh Tanwar & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; S.B. Civil Petition No.2518/2007, Hansa Ram & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2632/2007, Surendra & Ors. v. State & Ors. 8. At the threshold it Is stated by counsel for the petitioners that all the cases referred above have already been decided by this Court under the judgment dated 2.4.2009 by setting aside the declaration dated 6.8.2007 made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a liberty to proceed afresh in pursuant to the notification dated 25.7.2006 as per Section 4 of the Act of 1894 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners In terms of Section 5A(2) of the Act. 9. Learned counsels for the respondents have made an effort to distinguish theses cases with the cases decided vide judgment dated 2.4.2009 on the count that in those matters writ petitions were preferred before declaration of award as per provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act. It is asserted that in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court these petitions for writ deserve dismissal being preferred at belated stage i.e. after declaration of the award. The judgments on which reliance is placed are- State of Haryana & Ors. v. Dewan Singh & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 675 ; Swalka Properties (P) Ltd. & Ant v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2008)4 SCC 695 ; Municipal Council, Ahemdnagar & Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 48 ; C.Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627 ; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 501 ; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 48 ; C.Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627 ; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 501 ; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445 . 10. On examination of record of all the cases decided under the judgment dated 2.4.2009 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7103/2007, I found that number of cases decided were preferred after declaration of the award and this fact was noticed by the Court in the judgment itself. As such, the distinction sought to be made by the respondents is of no consequence. As a matter of fact by the judgment dated 2.4.2009 exactly similar petitions including S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9458/2008, Nain Singh & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10648/2007, Phulu & Ors. v. State & Ors. ; and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14157/2008, Noor Mohd. & Ors. v. State & Ors. , have already been decided. The judicial discipline demands to maintain uniformity in similar matters, thus, these petitions for writ too deserve to be decided in terms of the judgment passed earlier by this Court in similar matters. 11. Accordingly, these petitions for writ are allowed in terms of the judgment dated 2.4.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7103/2007, Sumer Khan & Ors. v. State & Ors. . The declaration dated 6.8.2007 made by the respondent State as per provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners' with liberty to the respondent State to proceed further In pursuant to the notification dated 25.7.2006 under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in terms of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894.No order to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******