Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 885 (RAJ)

Balu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-04-27

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
ORDER 1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the entire land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question including the notification dated 5.6.2012 (Annex. 1), declaration dated 4.6.2013 (Annex.4) and award dated 4.8.2015 (Annex. 10) be declared illegal and be quashed with all consequential directions; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notification dated 5.6.2012 have lapsed; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking possession of the land in question from the petitioners; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, if during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents proceed to take physical possession of the land in question, then the same may kindly be directed to be restored back to the petitioners; (v) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon?ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners; (vi) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners." 2. In nutshell, the facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that a notification dated 05.06.2012 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894r) was issued by the State Government, which was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary on 19.06.2012, followed by its publication in the two daily newspapers, namely Dainik Pratinidhi and Jalte Deep on 29.06.2012. 3. Vide the aforementioned notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, a land measuring 236.05 hectares situated in Village Kankani, Tehshil Luni, District Jodhpur and the land measuring 111.13 hectares situated in Village Kharabera Purohitaan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur - totalling 347.18 hectares - were sought to be acquired, for the purpose of development of an industrial area by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO). 4. On 04.04.2013, a report under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni) Jodhpur, in regard to the acquisition proceedings in question, mentioning therein that no objections were received from the concerned khatedars. 4. On 04.04.2013, a report under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni) Jodhpur, in regard to the acquisition proceedings in question, mentioning therein that no objections were received from the concerned khatedars. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.06.2013, which was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary on 10.06.2013, whereafter the concerned khatedars filed the representations on 08.07.2013 and 30.08.2013. Thereafter, various proceedings and correspondence took place. However, on 04.08.2015, the final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni), Headquarter Jodhpur. 5. Thus, the present petitioners being amongst the owners of the lands in question and aggrieved by the aforementioned proceedings, notification, declaration and the final award, have preferred the present petitions. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni) Headquarter Jodhpur, vide its communication dated 13.03.2015, had himself, while observing that the proposed land sought to be acquired is adjacent to Luni River, called for the departmental comments from the Advisor (Infra), RIICO Ltd, Jaipur, as to the suitability of the land in question for the purpose of acquisition. 7. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the aforementioned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was said to be pasted at conspicuous places, but the same has been done as an empty formality, and the attesting witnesses in regard thereto are also doubtful. 8. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that with the creation of industrial area, the lung spaces existing in the Jodhpur City, in the form greenbelt, have been obliterated, resulting into adverse affect upon the health of the residents of the City of Jodhpur. Learned counsels also submitted that in the best interest of the environment of the City, industrial area cannot be permitted to be developed, and that too, at such a close range. 9. Learned counsels also submitted that in the best interest of the environment of the City, industrial area cannot be permitted to be developed, and that too, at such a close range. 9. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that certain parcels of the land, in between the land sought to be acquired, have been left out from being included in the aforementioned notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, which clearly shows that the respondents have devised a pick and choose method, and thus, such an exercise of acquisition itself casts a shadow of doubt over the objective of the wider development of an industrial area. 10. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that a pipeline of H.P.C.L. is going beneath some part of the land sought to be acquired, which would be detrimental to the development of the industrial area. 11. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the newspapers, namely, Dainik Pratinidhi and Jaltedeep did not have adequate circulation in the urban and interior rural areas of Jodhpur Division, and thus, the respondents have completely failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the statute. 12. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that the respondents have also grossly violated the provisions of the statute, as the agricultural multi-cropped land has been sought to be made the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings in question. 13. To substantiate their arguments, learned counsels for the petitioners, have placed reliance upon the following precedent laws: (a) J. and K. Housing Board Vs. Kunwar San jay Krishan Kaul & Ors., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6709(1). (b) The Collector (Distt. Magistrate), Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1622 . (c) Roopa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 RLR 167. (d) V.K.M. Kattha Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 338 . (e) Khub Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 1967 SC 1074 . (f) Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 . (g) M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 1282 . (h) Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 228 . (f) Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 . (g) M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 1282 . (h) Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 228 . (i) Lajja Ram & Ors. Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 235 . (j) Babu Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 285. 14. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 05.06.2012, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 04.06.2013 and the final award itself was passed on04.08.2015, and thus, the writ petitions have been preferred after a gross delay. 15. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the main issue between the concerned land owners and the State Government was regarding the quantum of compensation, in which after considering the prayers of the concerned land owners, the State Government on 08.01.2020 had approved a plan for giving 25% of the developed land in lieu of compensation to the land owners in respect of the acquisition of their land. 16. Learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that most of the land owners, who had filed various writ petitions earlier, have accepted the aforementioned plan for grant of 25% of the developed land in lieu of the compensation for the acquired land, and most of such writ petitions have already been withdrawn. 17. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the aforementioned two newspapers, wherein the requisite publication regarding the land acquisition has been made, were recognized and registered, and had sufficient circulation in the concerned village, area, and locality, and therefore, the mandatory condition of circulated publications stood fulfilled. In this regard, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. Vs. J. Sivaprakasam & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 922 . 18. In this regard, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. Vs. J. Sivaprakasam & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 922 . 18. Learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that the City of Jodhpur, in its expanding dimensions, needed a separate industrial area, as the existing industrial area was saturated; furthermore, the sky rocketing prices of the land in the saturated areas are one of the key obstacles in the free development of the existing industrial area. 19. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the various big industries like Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) have already been allotted the land, and thus, the entire area shall be benefited with such credible industries being established, resulting into generation of employment and rejuvenation of the local economy. 20. Learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that the establishment of such separate and new industrial area is in accordance with the settled policy of the state, and the area itself has been developed after due permission and environmental clearance issued by the MoEF as well as the SEIAA, whereby only Category 'B' Industries shall be allowed to come into existence. 21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the land acquisition notification was issued on 05.06.2012, declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made on 04.06.2013, and the final award itself was passed on 04.08.2015 for the establishment of a new and a separate industrial area at Village Kankani and Village Kharabera Purohitaan, which are at the outskirts of District Jodhpur. 22. This Court takes note of the fact that the RIICO has already deposited the entire amount of compensation, in lieu of the acquisition in question, which is Rs.91,59,37,153/- with the Land Acquisition Officer on 03.10.2015 and the same had been disbursed to the most of the concerned khatedars. 23. This Court, from the record of the case, also finds that the land in question, free from all encumbrances, already stands mutated in favour of RIICO, in terms of the aforementioned final award dated 04.08.2015 and amended award dated 01.02.2016. 24. 23. This Court, from the record of the case, also finds that the land in question, free from all encumbrances, already stands mutated in favour of RIICO, in terms of the aforementioned final award dated 04.08.2015 and amended award dated 01.02.2016. 24. This Court also takes note of the fact that that the State of Rajasthan has already principally approved that proposition that the khatedar/interested person is entitled for allotment of 25% of the developed land in lieu of cash compensation towards the acquisition in question. 25. In terms of the policy of the State, the khatedar/interested person is entitled for allotment of 20% residential / industrial developed land and 5% of the commercial developed land with total 25% of the developed land in lieu of compensation, and also a large of number of the land owners, who had already withdrawn the respective writ petitions preferred by them, have also accepted such proposition. However, the option of cash compensation is also kept open under such policy. 26. This Court also finds that the publication of the notification and other information has been made in the two daily newspapers, which were recognized and registered, and were having wide circulation in the concerned village/locality, which is evident from the record, and thus, compliance of the mandate of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 has been made, in its strict sense. 27. Moreover, most of the land owners, who were petitioners in the earlier writ petitions laying challenge to the acquisition process in question, have already withdrawn their respective writ petition, while accepting the compensation. 28. This Court is of the opinion that the challenge to the final award dated 04.08.2015, as laid in these petitions, is belated, and any further delay in the establishment of the separate industrial area shall not only escalate the cost of its development, but also would be detrimental to the larger progress of the area in question. Further, coming up of the separate industrial area shall be in the larger interest of the local population as well as Jodhpur City. 29. The precedent laws cited by learned counsels for the petitioners do not apply in the present facts, as no such mandatory violation in relation to the land acquisition process in question, in the given circumstances, has been made out. 30. 29. The precedent laws cited by learned counsels for the petitioners do not apply in the present facts, as no such mandatory violation in relation to the land acquisition process in question, in the given circumstances, has been made out. 30. This Court also finds that the petitioners have failed to point out any clear violation of the mandatory requirement of the statute. 31. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient cause to be made out so as to warrant any interference in these petitions; this is more so when the larger interest of public purpose is involved herein. 32. For the foregoing discussion, the present petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. The stay applications also stand dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.