Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 886 (RAJ)

Prakash Chand 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 impugned Notification dated 29.11.2019 (Annex. 1) issued by the District Collector and order dated 12.03.2020 (Annex. 7) passed by the SDO, Pipad Shehar, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. II/- Pending the petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioners prejudicial to their interest, the same may kindly be taken on record and may be quashed and set-aside. III/- 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. IV/- Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners." 2. The sheet anchor of the present petitioners' case is initiation of the acquisition proceeding, in respect of certain lands situated, amongst others, in Pipar City, District Jodhpur, for the purpose of development of Bhavi-Pipar-Khivsar State Highway N0.86C. Such an exercise for acquisition of the land began with the notification dated 29.11.2019 issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013"). In these petitions, the aforesaid land acquisition process has been challenged. 3. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet R. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the mandate of Section 4 of the Act of 2013 required the social impact assessment study to be carried out, but the same was not done, in the true letter and spirit of such mandate. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that public hearing, in compliance of Section 5 of the Act of 2013, was also required to be provided before publishing the report in question prepared by the District Collector, in respect of the objections received in connection with the acquisition process, followed by the other processes. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 was published in the two daily newspapers, namely, Dainik Tarun Rajasthan and Badhte Kadam, which are not having wide circulation in the concerned area/locality. 6. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 was published in the two daily newspapers, namely, Dainik Tarun Rajasthan and Badhte Kadam, which are not having wide circulation in the concerned area/locality. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the principal ground of challenge is that as per section 15(3) of the Act of 2013, the final decision regarding objections under Section 15(2) could have been taken only by the appropriate Government, which is the State Government, whereas in the present case, the same has been done by the Land Acquisition Officer, who does not carry the requisite sanctity for the purpose, and since the mandatory provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2013 have been violated, therefore, the land acquisition process in question is bad in the eye of law. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the objections received under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 were decided by the Sub Divisional Officer -cum- Land Acquisition Officer on 12.03.2020, which is contrary to the spirit of the legislation. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that under the Act of 2013, only the State Government is capable and authorized to decide the objections, and thus, there was a complete failure on the part of the respondents in conducting the land acquisition process in question. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the compliance of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 2013 was also not made, in its strict sense. 10. Since Section 15 of the Act of 2013 is the core point raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the same is reproduced as hereunder: "15. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to- (a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification offered for public purpose; (c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that Government. (3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub-section (2) shall be final." 11. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following precedent laws: (a) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627 . (b) Shiv Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2018) 16 SCC 270 . (c) Radha Tekwani Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10429/2016, decided by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 14.12.2018). 12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that document Annexure-1 dated 29.11.2019 placed on record by the petitioners, was in fact only a notice issued by the District Collector under Rule 18(1) of the Rajasthan Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2016, and was not the notification for the land acquisition, and thus, the writ petitions should fail on that count alone. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the complete proceeding for the land acquisition in question has been carried out strictly in accordance with law, while fulfilling every parameter laid down there for. 14. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the complete proceeding for the land acquisition in question has been carried out strictly in accordance with law, while fulfilling every parameter laid down there for. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that since the proceedings for publication are concerned with the Department of Information and Public Relations, therefore, the Project Director, Public Works Department (P.P.P.), Jodhpur requested the said Department for publication of the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the concerned area, and in view thereof, the same was published in the newspapers, namely, Paryatan Bazaar and Dainik Marunad, which were recognized and registered print media being circulated in the concerned area. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the social impact assessment study was carried out in accordance with law, and the Multi Dimensional Expert Group assessed the social impact assessment report. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 21.11.2019, which was within one year from the date of approval of the social impact assessment report by the Expert Group. 17. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that as per proviso to Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013, in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government, and thus, the District Collector was the appropriate Government as per the statute. 18. Learned Additional Advocate General also drew attention of this Court towards Section 3(g) of the Act of 2013, which stipulated that the 'Collector' means the Collector of a revenue district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially designated by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act of 2013.19. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in exercise of its power, the State Government, which is the appropriate authority for the entire State, has vide notification dated 28.08.2015 authorized the Sub Divisional Officers (SDOs) to exercise all the powers vested in the Collectors under the Act of 2013. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in exercise of its power, the State Government, which is the appropriate authority for the entire State, has vide notification dated 28.08.2015 authorized the Sub Divisional Officers (SDOs) to exercise all the powers vested in the Collectors under the Act of 2013. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General thus submitted that in the present case also, SDOs were authorized to exercise all the powers vested in the Collectors under the Act of 2013; hence, the SDOs/Land Acquisition Officers had the power and authority to deal with the objections filed by the petitioners, and thus, there was no mandatory jurisdictional failure pertaining to Sub Section (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2013, as raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the contention regarding the circulation of the two newspapers would further fail, on the ground that since the petitioners themselves have made a statement that they had filed the objections, therefore, they were aware of such circulation, which enabled them to do so, and thus, there was no consequential failure, although the newspapers publications itself were conforming to the parameters of Section 11 of the Act of 2013. 21. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the project in question is a crucial public project, whereby the Highway shall enable the movement across the Pipar City without going through the congestion of the town itself, which shall be in the best interest of the public traffic at large. 22. 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 is of the considered opinion that in the present case, the respondents have adhered to the process laid down under the Act of 2013. 23. The compliance of Section 11 of the Act of 2013 is accepted, as the two recognized, registered and widely circulated newspapers were used for publication, and in pursuance of such publication, the objections were filed, which completely fulfills the mandate of the Act of 2013. The meaningfulness of the publication stands satisfied on count of the fact that the petitioners got the information through publication and filed the objections. 24. The meaningfulness of the publication stands satisfied on count of the fact that the petitioners got the information through publication and filed the objections. 24. The core proposition of violation of Section 15 of the Act of 2013, whereby the decision ought to have been taken by the appropriate Government and not by the LAOs/SDOs cannot be sustained in view of the definition of the term 'appropriate Government' as provided under Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013, proviso whereto clearly mentions that the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government, in respect of the area notified, and it is not disputed that in this case, the area notified entitled the Collector of the District to be an appropriate Government. Further, Section 3(g) of the Act of 2013 read with notification dated 28.08.2015 mandates the SDOs to exercise all the powers vested in the Collectors under the Act of 2013, and thus, SDOs/LAOs had the power to deal with the objections filed by the petitioners. There is no other substantial ground made out, except the aforesaid two, and since the matter pertains to the crucial public project of a Highway, any interference at this stage, on count of violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Act of 2013, is not warranted. 25. The precedent laws cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would not apply in the present facts. 26. This Court also finds that the petitioners have failed to point out any clear violation of the mandatory requirement of the statute. 27. 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. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the present petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. The stay applications also stand dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.