JUDGMENT 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. as against the interlocutory order passed by the Single Bench on September 11, 2012 staying the acquisition proceedings of the land in question and giving liberty to the State Government to restart the proceedings for the purpose of land acquisition in accordance with law with respect to land being acquired for the purpose of Jaipur Metro Rail Project. 3. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Alok Kotahwala & Ors. before the Single Bench praying for the relief of quashment of Notification issued under Section 4 on 26-5-2011 and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", published in Rajasthan Patrika on 6-7-2012. Prayer has also been made to quash the notice dated 11-7-2012 issued under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that acquisition of the land for the Metro Car Depot as mentioned in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is illegal, it amounts to colourable and mala fide exercise of the power; there has been gross violation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act; personal hearing was not given to the petitioners as provided under Section 5A of the Act; the objections submitted were not decided either by the State or by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO); it is neither feasible nor practicable to have depot on the metro route of the track much before the terminal station. A bare reading of the DPR shows that many operational features of the Metro can only be undertaken at the terminal station such as rak induction, withdrawal to main line, movement from depot to main line without affecting the headway of main line. A bare reading of the DPR shows that many operational features of the Metro can only be undertaken at the terminal station such as rak induction, withdrawal to main line, movement from depot to main line without affecting the headway of main line. The land of the petitioners is around 6- 7 meters below the ground level, at the same time the metro route is on an elevated platform, therefore, earth filling will have to be done at the site in question; the land of the petitioners is not basically required; there are other alternative lands available belonging to RIICO and IOC, which could have been used for the purpose of construction of Car Depot; such huge chunk of the land is not required, which is being acquired, therefore, the petition has been preferred. 4. In the return filed by the respondents i.e. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and also by the State, it is contended that only suitable land is being acquired; it cannot be said that the land in question is not suitable for the Car Depot: the petitioners cannot make their suggestions, the land in question cannot be termed as commercial plot; land acquisition proceedings have been legally initiated as per the detailed project report. This DPR has been prepared by the experts and they have decided all the places of the Metro Rail building and other matters ancillary thereto namely storm water drains, sewer line, water supply, trenches for electrical and signaling cables, circulating roads, watch towers, Jaipur Metro Rail Line, Stations. escalators, operating rooms, parking and other ancillary constructions at a particular place as per the approved map. It is also submitted that in a Car Depot, various buildings like Inspection Offices, work-shop Offices, Emergency Shed, Auto Coach Wash Plant, Parking, Staff Quarters, Coach Unloading Track, Scrap Yard, Interior Cleaning Shed etc. are required to be constructed, therefore, the planning for construction of the Car Deport has been accordingly done, a copy of the DPR has been filed as Annex.R/3/1 to the return. It cannot be said that there is any mala fide and colourable exercise of the power; the Scheme is to serve the public interest at large and the petitioners are seeking to halt the process of Jaipur Metro Rail Project without any basis. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation is a Corporate body as apparent from the Certificate Annex. It cannot be said that there is any mala fide and colourable exercise of the power; the Scheme is to serve the public interest at large and the petitioners are seeking to halt the process of Jaipur Metro Rail Project without any basis. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation is a Corporate body as apparent from the Certificate Annex. R/3/2 to the return. 5. It is further contended in the return filed by the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. that the Jaipur City has seen the development and growth at escalating rate during past two decades and the growth of the City has been continuously recorded in the past three decades. In addition to the development, Jaipur has also been a major tourist attraction for large number of domestic and international tourists. Due to the increase in the development and commercial activities, all the resources in the Jaipur City have seen a great constraint due to increased traffic, population, industries, business centers, colleges, schools etc. Therefore, the decision has been taken to undertake the Metro Rail Project so as to relieve the stress on the public transport system in the Jaipur City; the State Government has also taken steps in this regard; the Govt. of India has also entered into the Memorandum of understanding with the State Government. The development of the Jaipur Metro with the State Government. The development of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project is being carried out in a phased manner namely Phase-I Mansarovar to Badi Chopar (12.067 kms) and Phase-I1 Sitapura to Ambabari (23.099 kms). The work regarding Phase-I A (Mansarovar to Chandpol) of Phase-I is under construction and the same is being carried out by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on deposit basis. The development and construction of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project is being done strictly in accordance with the expert advice and the technical specifications and the alignment, route, placement of rail line. Stations, Metro Depot Building and services ancillary thereto namely storm water drains, sewer line, water supply, trenches for electrical and signaling cables, circulating roads, watch towers, Jaipur Metro Rail Line, Stations, escalators, operating rooms, parking and other ancillary constructions and ancillary activities cannot be changed, shifted or be allowed to be constructed by any other agency except by the authorised agency of the State Government. The policy decision of the State Government regarding development of Jaipur Metro Rail Project was challenged by way of filing a public interest litigation being DBCWP No. 17175/2010 by Human Settlement Techno Society: Stay Application has been rejected by a reasoned order by this Court and the SLP against the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court respectively vide Order dated 14-12-2011 and 27-7-2012: copies of the orders have been filed as Annex.R/3/7 and R/3/8 to the return. Other facts and grounds have also been denied. In the course of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. the petitioners themselves did not turn up for filing rejoinder: hence, the case was closed, after inviting the reply by the respondents, it was not necessary to give further date in view of the absence of the petitioner and non-participation on the date fixed in the case. The State Government has also decided the matter and extent of land required by a reasoned order: there is due application of mind made by the L.A.O. as well as by the State Government. The State Government in its return has also taken more or less similar objections. In addition, it is contended that Jaipur has come up as a major tourist destination with domestic as well as foreign tourist traffic in creasing every year with the result of growth in hospitality, entertainment, recreation, trade industry; with setting up of 60 engineering colleges, 40 business management institutes, 15 pharmacy, 9 medical & dental colleges and 4 hotel management institutes, Jaipur is fast developing as educational hub of Rajasthan. The existing urban transport system of Jaipur City has already come under stress leading to longer travel time, increased air pollution and rise in number of road accidents. thus, for the purpose of strengthening & augmenting the transport infrastructure, the metro project has been undertaken. The projects are essentially in the public interest and for public at large. Petitioners cannot decide the location of the land needed by Jaipur Metro Rail Project but it is for the experts to consider: the petitioners themselves are guilty of cutting eucalyptus trees and cannot contend that the metro project involves cutting of several trees. When the metro line was extended from Durgapura to Sitapura, the placement of Metro Depot was also accordingly changed and. When the metro line was extended from Durgapura to Sitapura, the placement of Metro Depot was also accordingly changed and. therefore, the land in question was sought to be acquired for the construction of said Depot. The alignment of metro line from Sitapura to Ambabari as well as the placement of Metro Car Depot has been decided on the basis of technical reports and expert opinions received by DMRC involved in the construction of Metro Project. So as to determine the area of the land required for the purpose of Metro Project, the length of Metro line, number of Stations and similar factors are taken into consideration to decide the total area required for Metro Project; no comparison from different metro routes can be done in this regard; it is purely a technical decision taken by the experts of the field; suggestion made that the RIICO's land may be utilised for the Metro Depot is misconceived, as the land referred is not under the ownership of the State Government; the same is to be used for the purpose of development of a world class Exhibition cum Convention Center in accordance with the policy of the State Government on Public Private Partnership basis, therefore, the said land cannot be utilised for the Metro Depot; award has been passed in favour of the RIICO on 13-2-2012 and possession has been given on 30-7-2012, copies of award & also possession letter have been filed as Annexs. R/1/3 and R/1/4 to the return. R/1/3 and R/1/4 to the return. The objections, which were made, were beyond the scope & purview of Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act The metro project is an ongoing project in which the decisions, drawings and planning are continuously under way; after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners appeared before the LAO through counsel and submitted objections; reply was sought by the LAO from JMRC; the counsel for the petitioners was continuously present before the LAO during the course of hearing on 5-7-11, 1 I- 7- 11, 28-7-11 and on all other dates of hearing up to 9-3-2012; petitioners were duly represented during the course of hearing on 9- 3-12 through their counsel; the next date fixed was 9-4-2012: on the said date, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared before the LAO; even subsequently, petitioners did not appear before the LAO, as such, the LAO proceeded with the consideration of objections filed in the course of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and ultimately prepared & sent the final report under Section 5A of the Act for consideration to the State Government: thus, ample opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners; all the objections were considered and considering the public interest, recommended to reject them; the mind was duly applied while preparing the report; even the State Government has clearly spelt out the reasons for acquisition of the land of the petitioners and the extent of the land required for the Depot; the report has been duly considered by the State Government; thereafter the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued after duly considering the objections and deciding them; there is no illegality in the acquisition proceedings, petitioners cannot be permitted to make suggestions as to alternative sites, as that is the matter for the experts. 6. The Single Bench has granted interim stay of the land acquisition proceedings, though it has been found that opportunity of hearing has been given, petitioners failed to keep themselves present before the LAO: there was no violation of the principles of natural justice or grant of opportunity of hearing. 6. The Single Bench has granted interim stay of the land acquisition proceedings, though it has been found that opportunity of hearing has been given, petitioners failed to keep themselves present before the LAO: there was no violation of the principles of natural justice or grant of opportunity of hearing. However, the Single Bench has stayed the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that on substance of the objections, the consideration is wholly absent and that the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded that in view of the requirement for acquisition of the land in issue for the public purpose. there was no need to consider objections; last but one para of report has been quoted by the Single Bench to indicate that there is non-consideration of the objections filed by the petitioners in the present case; & relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 2 SCC 25 : ( AIR 2012 SC 823 ). the acquisition proceedings have been stayed by the Single Bench giving liberty to restart acquisition proceedings in accordance with law for the land in issue. 7. Questioning the legality of the order, the intra Court appeal has been preferred by the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 8. The preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. A. K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. as to maintainability of the intra Court appeal being against the interlocutory order. He has placed reliance on Rule 134 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 by contending that it cannot be termed to be a judgment or final order. 9. Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Pathak, appearing on behalf of appellant JMRC Ltd.. has submitted that intra Court appeal lies against such an order, which is final at the stage and virtually, the State Government has been directed to restart fresh land acquisition proceedings. Consequently, such an order amounts to final adjudication of the rights and Jaipur Metro Rail Project is such a project which involves larger public interest, therefore, the order is final and amounts to judgment as contained in sub-rule (ii) of Rule 134 of the High Court Rules. 10. Consequently, such an order amounts to final adjudication of the rights and Jaipur Metro Rail Project is such a project which involves larger public interest, therefore, the order is final and amounts to judgment as contained in sub-rule (ii) of Rule 134 of the High Court Rules. 10. On merits, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant JMRC Ltd., has submitted that the order passed by the Single Bench that there was no due application of mind on the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act, is ex facie and palpably incorrect, there was due application of mind to the objections submitted and to the reply tiled, not only by the LAO but also by the State Government. It is also submitted that most of the objections were related to the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and that the metro project is not in the public interest; these aspects have been dealt with by this Court in number of cases and have been rejected; most of the objections were not within the purview of Section 5A of the Act; with respect to the situation of the land for the purpose of development of metro depot and the area required, the experts have taken the decision and the State Government has also taken into consideration this aspect elaborately; while passing the order, this has been completely ignored by the Single Bench; the last but one para of report, which has been quoted, has not been properly appreciated; the crux of the finding of the LAO is that considering the larger public interest involved in the matter, the objections are not sustainable; in the last but one para quoted by the Single Bench of the report of the LAO, there is finding recorded by the LAO that objections should not be taken into consideration, meaning thereby the objections should be rejected. is the intendment of the report of the LAO, which is to be seen; the report of the LAO is not required to he interpreted like Statute; there were about 28 objections. is the intendment of the report of the LAO, which is to be seen; the report of the LAO is not required to he interpreted like Statute; there were about 28 objections. which were summarised into 14 objections and again, there was sum marization of the reply by the LAO; thus, there was due application of mind not only to the objections while summarising them into 14, each & every objection has been effectively and specifically summarized, but LAO also summarised the reply filed by the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., which was definitely after due application of mind and thereafter, in the operative portion of the report, objection with respect to title of the petitioners as to Survey No. 1588 has been dealt with. With respect to objections as to the Survey and also regarding jurisdiction etc., it has been observed by the LAO that in the notification issued by the State Govt., powers have been given to the LAO and the objections are not tenable; the requirement of the land by Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. is in the public interest and the LAO has specifically expressed agreement with the same. Hence, it has been observed that the objections which have been filed, should not be taken into consideration, meaning thereby that he is satisfied considering the larger public interest that the objections are not tenable and, thereafter, the LAO has recommended the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act The State Government has passed final order mentioning reasons in Para 66 of the Notes. 11. Shri A. K. Bhandari, learned Sr. Counsel. assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors., has submitted that there was no due application of mind by the LAO; the objections under Section 5A of the Act have not been taken into consideration; the case was posted for hearing of the objections and mandatory requirement of Section 5A of the Act has not been complied with. He has placed reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court in this regard. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the State Government did not take into consideration that alternative land was available of the RIICO as well as of IOC, where Car Depot can very well be established. He has placed reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court in this regard. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the State Government did not take into consideration that alternative land was available of the RIICO as well as of IOC, where Car Depot can very well be established. Earlier, the detailed project report did not require so much area, which is now being acquired for the purpose of establishment of Car Depot; the action cannot be said to be bona fide; the LAO in his report has not taken into consideration the objections; the report is nothing but paraphrasing of the objections and the reply given by the JMRC simplicitor. which cannot be said to be due consideration of the objections, thus, interim stay has been rightly granted by the Single Bench relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kamal Trading's case, AIR 2012 SC 823 (supra); there was no necessity to acquire the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the Car De pot; thus, the acquisition is mala fide and is colourable exercise of the power. 12. Mr. G. S. Bapna, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Venkatesh Garg, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 has submitted that in such matters, there should not be any grant of interim stay considering the importance of Project in question i.e. Jaipur Metro Rail Project, which cannot be slowed down; virtually the final order has been passed giving liberty to the State Government to restart the land acquisition proceedings, it cannot be said to be interlocutory order; it is final in nature and the report of the LAO & the order passed by the appropriate Government thereon. have not been duly taken into consideration by the Single Bench: while preparing the report by the LAO. there is due consideration of the objections and no case for interference was made out before the Single Bench, much less to grant interim stay. Learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997. SC 1236. there is due consideration of the objections and no case for interference was made out before the Single Bench, much less to grant interim stay. Learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997. SC 1236. and submitted that the approach of the Court should be such that no interim relief should he granted in a matter involving larger public interest, which may affect the entire project itself and the considerations to be taken into account by the Court while considering such interim application, have also been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order of the Single Bench does not qualify the requirement for grant of interim stay laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. 13. Coming to the first objection raised by Shri A. K. Bhandari, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vaihhav Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors.. as to maintainability of the appeal, we find that considering the nature of the order passed by the Single Bench staying the land acquisition proceedings and giving liberty to the State Government to restart the land acquisition proceedings afresh amounts to judgment or final order within the purview of Rule 134 of the High Court Rules, Rule 134 of the High Court Rules is quoted below : "134(i) Appeal to the High Court from Judgment of Judges of the Court-An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the Judgment or a final order (not being a Judgment passed in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court. (ii) Special appeal - A person desiring to prefer a special appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge shall present a duly stamped memorandum of appeal within sixty days from the date of such judgment. (ii) Special appeal - A person desiring to prefer a special appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge shall present a duly stamped memorandum of appeal within sixty days from the date of such judgment. Where such appeal is presented after the period mentioned above, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and it shall be rejected unless the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for non-preferring the appeal within the aforesaid time. The memorandum of appeal shall be drawn-up in accordance with Rules 125, 130 and 13 I of this Chapter and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from along with two extra typed copies of the judgment or order. 14. The Apex Court has considered the meaning of the judgment in Shah Babulal Khintji v. Jayahen D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786 . in the context of Letters Patent (Boni.), Clause 15, it has been observed that the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings. The Apex Court has further laid down that an order of the trial Judge refusing to appoint a receiver or to grant an ad interim injunction is undoubtedly a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent both because Order 43. R. I applies to internal appeals in the High Court and apart from it such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a judgment within the meaning of CI. 15 of the Letters Patent. The Apex Court has laid down in paras 119 and 123 thus : 119. Apart from the tests laid down by Sir White, C.J. the following considerations must prevail with the Court : (1) That the trial Judge being a senior Court with vast experience of various branches of law occupying a very high status should he trusted to pass discretionary or interlocutory orders with due regard to the well settled principles of civil justice. Thus, any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit which may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice one party or the other cannot he treated as a judgment other-wise the appellate Court (Division Bench) will he flooded with appeals from all kinds of orders passed by the Trial Judge. The Courts must give sufficient allowance to the trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must he presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. (2) That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings. (3) The tests laid down by Sir White, C.J. as also by Sir Couch, C. J. as modified by later decisions of the Calcutta High Court itself which have been dealt with by us elaborately should be borne in mind. 123. In the instant case, as the order of the trial Judge was one refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an ad interim injunction, it is undoubtedly a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent both because in view of our judgment, 0.43, R. I applies to internal appeals in the High Court and apart from it such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would, therefore, be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The consistent view taken by the Bombay High Court in the various cases noted above or other cases which may not have been noticed by us regarding the strict interpretation of clause 15 of the Letters Patent are hereby overruled and the Bombay High Court is directed to decide the question in future in the light of our decision." 15. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda. (2006) 5 SCC 399: ( AIR 2006 SC 2190 ). the Apex Court has considered the term 'judgment' in the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court and while considering its scope, has held that it covers not only judgments and orders stated respectively in Section 2(9) and Order 43. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda. (2006) 5 SCC 399: ( AIR 2006 SC 2190 ). the Apex Court has considered the term 'judgment' in the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court and while considering its scope, has held that it covers not only judgments and orders stated respectively in Section 2(9) and Order 43. R. I. Civil Procedure Code but also interlocutory orders which might have attained finality in regard to some collateral matter affecting the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Categories of interlocutory orders falling within and falling without the scope of the term "judgment" for the purpose of filing letters patent appeals have also been specified. The interlocutory order passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in contempt proceedings, directing the complainant to be reinstated with full hack wages, has been held to he interlocutory judgment, which finally decided several rights and obligations of the employee. Hence, it was held to he appealable under Clause 15. The Apex Court also held that the term "judgment" would also include the judgment which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case, or an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case, or a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case, are. therefore. "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment and orders which may cause some in-convenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, are not "judgments" for the purpose of tiling letters patent appeals. 16. In Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 358 . 16. In Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 358 . while the single Bench refused the amendment of written statement at the time of framing issues, the order was held to be appealable to Division Bench by the Hon'ble Apex Court, being not a purely interlocutory order but one vitally affecting rights of the parties and causing injustice to the plaintiff. 17. Mr. A. K. Bhandari, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala& Ors., has relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (2) RLR 724 , ( AIR 2000 Raj 379 ). in which the Division Bench of this Court has considered the maintainability of the special appeal against the interim order under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. The matter pertained to Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, which has now been repealed. In D. B. Sogani v. Akhil Bhartiya Bank of Rajasthan Karmchari Sangh, 20(x) (2) RLR 552, ( AIR 2000 Raj 337 ). the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the order of maintaining status quo and it was held that under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. the appeal was not maintainable. Similar is the case of Secretary, Department of Canteen Management v. Krishna Kuma Saxena, 2000 (3) RLR 467 . Reliance has also been placed on the case of M/s. Gulam Abbas Kamruddin 13 halamawala v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLR 12 . Again, it is a decision on Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, in terms of the interlocutory order, the order was passed in the stay application. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Gir Raj Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (1) RLW Raj 53. Similar view has been taken on the strength of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 18. The provision of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, since repealed, is quoted below : "Sec. 18 Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court. (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court. Similar view has been taken on the strength of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 18. The provision of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, since repealed, is quoted below : "Sec. 18 Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court. (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court. from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under Section 43 or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the High Court. (2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the High Court made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal." 19. The Section 18 is different from the provision of Rule 134 of the High Court Rules, which is holding the field as on today. 20. Thus, considering the nature of the order passed by the single Bench, as the very project of Metro may be jeopardised and also the fact in the order the State has been given liberty to restart the land acquisition proceedings afresh, we term it to be a "judgments" falling within the purview of Rule 134 of the High Court Rules appealable before the Division Bench of this Court considering the nature of the order passed and its effect. 21. Coming to the submission whether there is any consideration to the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act by the LAO, we find that the mind has been duly applied by the LAO. A reading of the report submitted by the LAO makes it clear that the same has not been considered properly by the Single Bench. There were as many as 28 Objections in separate paragraphs; they have been summarised into 14. A reading of the report submitted by the LAO makes it clear that the same has not been considered properly by the Single Bench. There were as many as 28 Objections in separate paragraphs; they have been summarised into 14. which could not have been done without active and due application of mind by the LAO to the Objections and, thereafter, meticulously the reply to the Objections has also been summarized, they are not paraphrased, as suggested by learned Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala. The meticulous mention of the summarised Objections and the reply indicate that the LAO was not only alive of the nature of Objections, which were raised, but also of the reply and after mentioning the stand of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project as well as the Objections on the last page of the report, objection with respect to exclusive ownership regarding Survey No. 1588, it has been mentioned that ½ share is that of Kalu and ½ share is of petitioner Alok Kotahwala, who was petitioner No. 1 before the Single Bench, therefore, the objection raised by Alok Kotahwala with respect to ½ share being wrongly recorded in the ownership of other person, has not been found to he tenable for want of documents and relying upon the entry made in the Jamabandi with respect to correctness of which there exists statutory presumption, as such, objection as to there being some other owner also of ½ share of the Survey No. 1588, has been rejected. In last but one paragraph of the report, it has been mentioned that there is objection with respect to Survey and also regarding jurisdiction etc. In this regard, it has been observed that the objections are not tenable. Last para of the report has to be seen in the light of the objections submitted as also the stand taken by the JMRC, which have been summarized. In the last paragraph of the report of the LAO, it has been clearly mentioned that the land in question is required for the public purpose, as such, the objections are not to be considered, meaning thereby that they are not to be accepted and, thereafter, the LAO has recommended the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In the last paragraph of the report of the LAO, it has been clearly mentioned that the land in question is required for the public purpose, as such, the objections are not to be considered, meaning thereby that they are not to be accepted and, thereafter, the LAO has recommended the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Meaning of the word "Vichar" occurring in the last para of the report of the LAO cannot be construed in the manner it has been done by the Single Bench. In our considered opinion, the meaning given to the word "consideration", has to be in the context in which it has been observed, is that the objections are not acceptable/tenable; in the first line of same para. satisfaction has been recorded with respect to existence of public purpose, thereafter, it has been mentioned that the objections are not tenable and they are not to be accepted; and overall intention of the report of the LAO has to be taken into consideration, it's only a report, thereafter, the final decision has been taken by the appropriate Government under Section 5A; it was only a recommendation made by the LAO in report and due application of mind has been made by the State Government with respect to area required after due deliberations by the JMRC and DMRC; the placement of Metro Car Depot has been decided on the basis of the technical reports and expert opinions; it was not for the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. to have become expert and seek interference of this Court in view of the experts' opinion in the matter, which has to hold the field. 22. The operative portion of the report submitted by the LAO is quoted below :(Vernacular matter omitted.......... Ed.) 23. The unquoted portion of the long report of the LAO also indicates due consideration of the objections, which were summarised & reduced in number so as to avoid the repetition. thus, there was due application of mind to the objections and the reply. 24. We shall deal with the various objections at the later stage. However, the report of the LAO was placed before the State Government and the detailed notes were submitted. In para 53 of the Note, which has been placed on record, it is recorded that the Metro Depot etc. 24. We shall deal with the various objections at the later stage. However, the report of the LAO was placed before the State Government and the detailed notes were submitted. In para 53 of the Note, which has been placed on record, it is recorded that the Metro Depot etc. are being established as per the technical requirement. The State Government considered the report of the LAO and in para 66 of the Note of the State Government, it is recorded that the matter was discussed with the Project Director DMRC and Chairman and Managing Director JMRC and DMRC and JMRC are of the opinion that "entire land" in question under acquisition would be required for depot purpose. The Project Director, DMRC has also consulted Delhi office and it has also conveyed the same. After giving a careful consideration to the report of the LAO under Section 5A of the Act and the opinion regarding the essential need of the entire land by the DMRC, it has been opined by the State Govt. that the proposed land to be acquired is essential for the purpose for which it is being acquired. looking to the length of Metro line and number of Stations in phase-II vis-a-vis phase-I and provision taken in the DPR and hence, the action of the land being acquired, appears reasonable and recommended to accept the report of the LAO and, accordingly, to issue the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the said Note has been approved by the concerned Minister also. Para 66 of the Note dated 4-7-2012 indicates that how the mind has been applied to the extent of area required for the Depot and technical aspect, same is quoted below: "66. Matter was discussed with PD. DMRC and CMD. JMRC. PD. DMRC as well as CMD. JMRC are of the opinion that entire land under acquisition would be required for depot purpose. PD, DMRC has also consulted Delhi office and it has also conveyed the same. After giving a careful consideration to the report of LAO under Section 5A and the opinion regarding the essential need of the entire land by the DMRC. JMRC are of the opinion that entire land under acquisition would be required for depot purpose. PD, DMRC has also consulted Delhi office and it has also conveyed the same. After giving a careful consideration to the report of LAO under Section 5A and the opinion regarding the essential need of the entire land by the DMRC. I am of the view that proposed land to be acquired is essential for the purpose for which it is being acquired, looking to the length of Metro line and number of stations in phase II vis-a-vis phase I and provision taken in the DPR. Hence the action of the land being acquired appears reasonable. We may accept report of 5A and issue the notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act." 25. The reasons have been given by the State Government why the Car Depot was required to be established at the place in question and the route has been worked out by the JMRC and the same has been acquired also. 26. Coming to the suggestion made by learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. I to 4 that the land in possession of the RIICO could have been acquired. The said land has been acquired recently and award has been passed in February. 2012 for establishing world class Exhibition-cum-Convention Centre in accordance with the policy of the State Government on Public Private Partnership basis, thus, it is not for the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala and Ors. to impose choice that the said land could have been acquired for the purpose of establishment of Car Depot. 27. Similarly, the suggestion made by learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 4 that the land belonging to the I.O.C. could have been used for establishment of Car Depot, is also falsified by the document Annex. to impose choice that the said land could have been acquired for the purpose of establishment of Car Depot. 27. Similarly, the suggestion made by learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 4 that the land belonging to the I.O.C. could have been used for establishment of Car Depot, is also falsified by the document Annex. R/3/13 filed along with the return in which it has been mentioned that over the land, which is submitted as alternative land, Indian Oils Crude Pipeline Pumping Station is in operation; the said pipeline is used for dispatching the crude petroleum from Mathura Pipeline to Panipat Refinery: there was no proposal by the I.O.C. to surrender the land to the State Government, thus, the land cannot be said to be alternative land available for establishment of the Car Depot, considering the immense importance of the Project of refinery, moreover it could not be said to be available. 28. There is due consideration by the State Government on material aspects. When we come to the nature of objections, most of the objections are beyond the purview of Section 5A of the Act. The objections are with respect to area required and the location with respect to which there is due application of mind reflected in para 66 of the file of the appropriate Government. same has been quoted above. It has been clearly mentioned in para. 66 that the entire land under acquisition would be required for depot purpose. for which the consultation was made with the DMRC and JMRC and the opinion from head office was again sought; the report of the LAO has been taken into consideration and the opinion has been formed regarding the requirement of entire land by the IMRC for Car Depot; it has been categorically found by the State Govt. that the entire land is essential for the purpose for which it is being acquired. It has been further observed by the State Govt. that looking to the length of the Metro line and number of Stations in phase II, which are more vis-a-vis phase I as also the provision taken in the DPR, the action which has been taken for acquisition, has been found to be reasonable, as such the report of the LAO has been accepted for the valid reasons after due application of mind. With respect to the area required and the purpose for which it is being acquired, these aspects have been duly considered by the State Government, as such, without taking into consideration the reasons mentioned by the State Government vide para 66 of the Note dated 4-7-2012, the interim stay should not have been granted by the single Bench. 29. When we come to the objections which were raised; first objection with respect to validity of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, it could not have been made the ground of enquiry to be made under purview of Section 5A; second objection was with the use of word 'satisfaction' in notification under Section 4 of the Act, which also pertained to the validity of the notification, it could not have been the subject-matter of the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. with respect to public interest, whether public purpose is involved or not, there are several decisions of this Court with respect to Jaipur Metro Rail Project that this is in the public interest and for the public purpose the acquisition is being made. In DBCWP No. 17175/2010 filed by Human Settlement Techno Society, stay application has been rejected by a reasoned order by this Court and the SLP against the same has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The finding as to public purpose has been duly recorded by the LAO in report and is writ large. Coming to the objection with respect to survey, suffice it to say that detailed project report has been prepared by the experts and reasons have been given by the State Government as to area etc. thus, there was no merit in these untenable objections. It is not open to respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. to dictate ipse dixit and seek interference in the field reserved for experts; in such a matter, the Court cannot make interference while exercising power of judicial review. So far as the objection with respect to availability of the other land of the IOC and RIICO etc. is concerned, the land cannot he said to be available. Even other wise, once the experts of the field have decided that Car Depot is to be established at a particular place. it is not for the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. is concerned, the land cannot he said to be available. Even other wise, once the experts of the field have decided that Car Depot is to be established at a particular place. it is not for the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. to substitute the choice in such matters of immense public importance. 30. The eighth objection was with respect to the requirement of lesser land for Phase II and it has been mentioned by the LAO in para 8 of the report along with the reply that there is want of necessary details and documents, the State Govt. has considered it in para 66 and found that the objection is untenable, a conjoint reading whereof makes it clear that objection has been rightly dealt with and held to be unsustainable. 31. With respect to ecological balance, there has to be sustainable development and such projects of immense public importance cannot he halted. It is not the case that requisite permissions from the Central Government and the State Government have not been obtained, thus, objections were flimsy. In other petitions also pertaining to the same Project, this Court has held that such project of immense public importance should not be put to halt. Thus, flimsy and untenable objections were raised, which have been rightly rejected after due application of mind. 32. Coming to the submission raised by learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Alok Kotahwala and Ors. with respect to non-grant of opportunity of hearing, first we examine the facts of the instant case, before coming to the various decisions. 33. After issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Alok Kitahwala & Ors. appeared before the LAO through counsel and submitted objections on 28-6-11. thereafter it was fixed on 5-7-11, 11-7-11 and 28-7-11: on 24-8-11, the JMRC had already filed the reply, which was taken on record; the case was listed thereafter on 14-9-11, 9-11-11, 8-12-11, 13-1-12, 15-2-12 for filing the reply by the JMRC to the objections submitted by other objector; on 9-3-12, the JMRC filed reply to the objections submitted by another objector and the next date 9-4-12 was fixed for filing re joinder in the presence of counsel for the objectors/petitioners. However, on 9-4-12, rejoinder was not filed, neither the objectors turned up before the LAO nor their counsel was present; the period of one year was going to expire within two months, as such, the Land Acquisition Officer decided to prepare the report and, accordingly. sent it to the State Government in May, 2012. Thus, it cannot he said in the facts of the instant case that there was denial of opportunity of being heard, as the objectors and their counsel absented themselves on 9-4-12 and considering time constraint, the matter could not have been delayed any further, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was right in sending the report to the State Government. 34. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-JMRC, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aircraft Employees' Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, (1996) 11 SCC 475 : ( AIR 1996 SC 3501 ). In the said case, the facts reflect that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Gazette acquiring the land for housing scheme of the Housing Co-operative Society. The objections were filed under Section 5A. the same were considered and a declaration under Section 6(1) was published in the Gazette. Thereupon, the land owners filed a writ petition in the High Court. The interim stay was granted and it was held that the enquiry under Section 5A was vitiated. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the right under Section 5A. has observed that opportunity of filing objections has been given and at his instance, the case was posted for hearing on which date neither the respondent nor his counsel was present. Under these circumstances, the respondent having failed to present himself either in person or through counsel on 30- 11-81, the omission to give a right of hearing does not vitiate enquiry under Section 5A. On the other hand, the respondent denied himself the opportunity of being heard. The Apex Court has held in para 5 thus : "5. The next question is whether the view taken by the High Court that the enquiry under Section 5-A is vitiated in law, is correct? In our view, the High Court has not correctly interpreted the legal position. It is seen that the respondent was given opportunity thrice to file his objections. The next question is whether the view taken by the High Court that the enquiry under Section 5-A is vitiated in law, is correct? In our view, the High Court has not correctly interpreted the legal position. It is seen that the respondent was given opportunity thrice to file his objections. At his in stance, the case was posted for hearing on 30-11-1981 on which date neither the respondent nor his counsel was present. Under these circumstances. the respondent having failed to present himself either in person or through counsel on 30-11-1981, the omission to give a right of hearing to him does not vitiated enquiry under Section. 5A. On the other hand, the respondent denied himself of the opportunity of being heard. Therefore, enquiry under Section 5A is not vitiated by the error of law. Consequently, the declaration under Section 6 is not vitiated by any error of law. Shri Juneja equally is not correct in contending that even tinder the unamended Act by operation of the first proviso to Section 6(1), the three years' period had expired by 19- 11-1994 and, therefore, the notification under Section 4(I) stood elapsed. Admittedly, the notification under Section 4(l) was published on 24-11-198 1. The writ petition was filed in 1982 sometime after October, 1982. Therefore, the stay was granted. In the interregnum, the Government was disabled to take further steps and, therefore, it cannot be said that though the stay was granted the notification under Section 4(1) stood elapsed for non-publication of the declaration under Section 6 within three years tip to 23-9-1994. We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Juneja." 35. In the instant case, in view of the absence of the objectors i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Alok Kotahwala and Ors. or their counsel and in absence of filing rejoinder by them, the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in closing the case for the report under Section 5A of the Act. The absence of the counsel for the objectors as well as non-filing of the rejoinder indicate that the objectors denied themselves the opportunity of being heard; the case could have been heard on that very day. The absence of the counsel for the objectors as well as non-filing of the rejoinder indicate that the objectors denied themselves the opportunity of being heard; the case could have been heard on that very day. had the objectors or their counsel were present before the Land Acquisition Officer: thus, the LAO was justified in closing the case on 9-4-2012 and it could not he said that the LAO denied the objectors the opportunity of being heard as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act. It was not a case of regular trial being undertaken by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was necessary for the objectors i.e. respondent Nos. I to 4 as well as their counsel to keep themselves present before the LAO and to pursue their objections and also to support them. In spite of their absence, all the objections have been taken into consideration, thus, there is sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice and rule of audi alteram partem, it cannot be said to have been violated in the instant case considering the facts of the case, the report of the LAO and also the order passed by the State Government; there was limitation of one year for issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act; as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26-5-2011, the declaration under Section 6 was required to be issued within one year. The report of the LAO was to he sent to the State Government also for final decision, thus, in the facts of the instant case, no further opportunity could have been given to the objectors; sufficient opportunity had been given and they failed to avail the oral hearing by keeping themselves absent on the date fixed before the LAO i.e. on 9-4-2012. 36. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant-JMRC. has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 3 SCC 752 , ( AIR 1995 SC 1549 ). 36. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant-JMRC. has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 3 SCC 752 , ( AIR 1995 SC 1549 ). In that case, a notice was issued indicating to the petitioner that he was at liberty to file his objections within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice and in case, he wished to appear and at the time when he filed the objections, he was also asked to appear either in person or through authorised representative or advocate and he would be heard on his objections. Admittedly, the petitioner had not appeared either in person or through advocate but had chosen to file his objections through post. The Apex Court held that he did not intend to avail the benefit of hearing while submitting objections. The Apex Court in Rambhai (supra) has laid down in para 6 thus : "Notice in the present case did indicate that the petitioner was at liberty to file his. objections within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice and in case he wished to and at the time when he filed the objections, he was also asked to appear either in person or through authorised representative or advocate and he would be heard on his objections. Admittedly, the petitioner had not appeared, either in person or through advocate but had chosen to file his objections through post. It would be obvious that he did not intend to avail the benefit of hearing while submitting objections. If it were a case that he personally appeared and filed objections and requested for hearing, but for one reason or other he was not heard, then time should he granted and perhaps it may be requested to be adjourned to a next short date to be heard. The petitioner having chosen to send the objections through post and when the notice does indicate that he was to appear either in person or through advocate or authorised representative along with objections but failed. then there would be no need to give any further date of hearing." 37. In the instant case, similar notice has also been issued inviting objections and for personal hearing, thus, the objectors i.e. respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. then there would be no need to give any further date of hearing." 37. In the instant case, similar notice has also been issued inviting objections and for personal hearing, thus, the objectors i.e. respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala & Ors. could not have absented themselves after filing objections in order to successfully contend that they were not granted opportunity of hearing. The Single Bench has rightly found that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. Learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 4, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Trading ( AIR 2012 SC 823 ) (supra) in which the Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 5A of the Act and has observed that sub-section (2) of Section 5A requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf. The Land Acquisition Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to he strictly construed. It has also been held that the recommendation made by the LAO must indicate the objective application of mind. The Apex Court has further laid down that when the objections were tiled and LAO adjourned the hearing on the request of the appellant. He, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further. The second request was rejected. The Apex Court observed that looking to the "nature of the issues" involved, the LAO could have adjourned the hearing after putting the appellant to terms because hearing was mandatory. However, the Apex Court has made the aforesaid observations considering the nature of the issues involved in the said case. 39. In the instant case, the decision in Kamal Trading ( AIR 2012 SC 823 ) (supra) is not applicable, as no prayer for adjournment was made on 9-4-12. There was total absence on the part of the objectors as well as their counsel. The LAO could not have keep the matter pending, as limitation period of one year was shortly coming to an end and the matter was to he considered at the level of the State Government for which considerable time was required. There was total absence on the part of the objectors as well as their counsel. The LAO could not have keep the matter pending, as limitation period of one year was shortly coming to an end and the matter was to he considered at the level of the State Government for which considerable time was required. Considering the issues involved in the instant case, we find that there was sufficient compliance of Section 5A and most of the objections were flimsy, untenable and ineffective: all material objections have been taken into consideration appropriately with respect to location and area of the land required for the purpose of establishment of Metro Project not only by the LAO as well as by the State Government, as mentioned in para 66 of the Note of the State Government. Thus, we find that no sustenance can be derived by respondent Nos. I to 4 on facts from the decision in Kamal Trading (supra). 40. Respondents' counsel has also relied upon the case of Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 337 , ( AIR 1973 SC 1150 ). in which it has been held that Section 5A embodies it very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired, should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. In the instant case, the objector-respondent Nos. I to 4 absented themselves before the LAO on 9-4-2012, thus, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice or denial of opportunity of hearing as provided in Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, the case of Munshi Singh (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. 41. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 298 , ( AIR 1974 SC 1868 ). in which the Apex Court while considering the provision of Section 5A has laid down that the duty to afford such an opportunity is mandatory and without giving opportunity of hearing to the objector. the decision of the Government would be vitiated. The Apex Court in para 5 held thus : "5. in which the Apex Court while considering the provision of Section 5A has laid down that the duty to afford such an opportunity is mandatory and without giving opportunity of hearing to the objector. the decision of the Government would be vitiated. The Apex Court in para 5 held thus : "5. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the basis that the appellant had no opportunity of being heard by the Collector under Section 5A. The duty to afford such an opportunity is mandatory. A decision by the Government on the objection, when the Collector afforded no opportunity of being heard to the objector, would not be proper. The power to hear the objection under Section 5A is that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government. It is no doubt true that the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector is not binding on the Government. The Government may choose either to accept the recommendation or to reject it: but the requirement of the section is that when a person's property is proposed to he acquired, he must be given an opportunity to show cause against it. Merely because the Government may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector, even when he makes one, it cannot be said that he need not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Government to decide the matter. In other words, the fact that the Collector is not the authority to decide the objection does not exonerate him from his duty to hear the objector on the objection and make the recommendation." 42. There is no dispute with respect to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the instant case, we find that the respondent Nos. I to 4 and their counsel absented before the LAO and, therefore, they were not interested in oral hearing and the matter could not have been kept pending. as notification under Section 4 of the Act would have lapsed on completion of one year. 43. Similar is the law laid down in the case of Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, (1976) 3 SCC 719 : ( AIR 1976 SC 2095 ). in which the provision of Section 5A of the Act has been held to be mandatory. 43. Similar is the law laid down in the case of Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, (1976) 3 SCC 719 : ( AIR 1976 SC 2095 ). in which the provision of Section 5A of the Act has been held to be mandatory. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627 : (AIR 2005 SC 3520). again the scope of Section 5A of the Act has been taken into consideration. the Apex Court has observed in paras 6. 9 and 15 thus : "6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must he for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must he paid. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must he an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must he preceded by application of mind as regard consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to he akin to a fundamental right. 15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject-matter of notification under Section 4(l) of the Act. The said Report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to for ward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a Report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. The said Report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to for ward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a Report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now well-settled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason. (See Kalumiya Karimmiya v. The State of Gujarat and others, ( AIR 1977 SC 497 ). and Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uhan, ( AIR 2000 SC 3737 )). 44. In the instant case, we find that effective and due opportunity of hearing has been given to the objectors and that their valuable right under Section 5-A of the Act has not been deprived also. 45. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792 : ( AIR 2012 SC 468 ) in which the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 5A of the Act: the facts reflect that notices which were served on the appellant and his wife did not bear the signatures and no explanation was offered by the respondents about this omission. The LAO proceeded to decide the objections by assuming that the notice has been delivered to all the objectors. Not only this, someone in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector forged the appellant's signature to show his presence in PWD Rest House, Rai on 29- 11-2006. whereas in the instant case, the notice has been admittedly served; objections were filed and thereafter there was inexplicable absence on the part of the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala and Ors. and their counsel for pursue their objections and to argue the matter: still, the LAO and the State Government have taken into consideration and dealt with all the objections. There-after. the final decision has been taken by the appropriate Government under Section 5A after due application of mind with respect to area required after due deliberations by the JMRC and DMRC: the placement of Metro Car Depot has been decided on the basis of the technical reports and expert opinions: it was not for the respondent Nos. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala and Ors. I to 4 Alok Kotahwala and Ors. to substitute opinion of experts and seek interference in the opinion of experts given in the technical matter. The objections were untenable and flimsy and have been rightly rejected by the LAO relying upon the opinion of the experts of the field. 46. Learned Advocate General has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranlniklal N. Bhutta, ( AIR 1997 SC 1236 ) (supra) in which it has been held that the Court has to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in the cases of land acquisition, while considering interim stay/injunctions and the balance of convenience is also to be seen and whether what amount of damage is going to be caused. The public interest has to kept in mind while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and it should be used only in the public interest: public interest cannot be given total go bye in such cases. The Apex Court has laid down in para 10 thus : "10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions tiled on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions tiled on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or grant in stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will he exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes. the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an inter locutory nature, is equally discretionary. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. to wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings." 47. On the basis of the aforesaid principles, the grant of interim stay could not be said to be even otherwise justified. 48. On merits, we find the order of interim stay passed by the single Bench to be untenable, thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the same. On the basis of the aforesaid principles, the grant of interim stay could not be said to be even otherwise justified. 48. On merits, we find the order of interim stay passed by the single Bench to be untenable, thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the same. Suffice it to observe that in such cases of public importance of Metro Rail Project, there should not be any interim stay, rather an effort should be made to decide the matter finally at an early date. Staying the land acquisition proceedings is not appropriate and would he against the larger public interest involved in such projects. Thus, relying upon the decision in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta, ( AIR 1997 SC 1236 ) (supra), we hold that in the matter of immense public importance like the present one, the power to grant interim stay under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in the normal course. 49. Resultantly, the appeal tiled by the JMRC is allowed. The impugned interim stay order dated 11-9-2012 passed by the single Bench is set aside and, hence, S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 9112 of 2012 stands dismissed. D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 363 2/20 1 2 also stands disposed of.Appeal allowed. *******