JUDGMENT 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquisition of the agricultural land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.106 measuring 1.10 hectare at Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for seeking directions from this Court for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 27/05/2005 issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1894 as well as declaration dated 19/05/2006 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. 2. Facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased the above referred land in revenue village Vimalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur measuring 4 Bigha 2 Biswa (1.10 hectare) on 17/02/2003 by way of registered sale deed. On 27/05/2005, the respondent-State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of the said land for the purpose of expansion of Sitapura Industrial Area to be developed by respondent no.2-RIICO. The total land to be acquired was 199.75 acres. On 16/06/2005, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 stating that the land in question of the petitioner is an agricultural land having old construction as well as trees and plants are existing on the same and if the land in question is left out, no prejudice will be caused. The petitioner also cited one Circular of the respondent-department dated 06/04/1998 whereby it was specified that the Government should consider that unnecessary land acquisition activities should not be initiated upon Abadi, irrigated, cultivated lands. The petitioner further submitted in objections to the notification under Section 5- A that at least 337 industrial plots are lying vacant in Sitapura Industrial Area. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the respondent-RIICO consider the objections and prepared their report and sent recommendations to the Government vide order dated 25/01/2006 dealing with the objections of the petitioner and specifically holding that the land in question is situated in mid of the project and therefore, it is not suggested to leave the land qua the acquisition proceedings as the same will prejudice the planned development. It was pointed out in the report that the plantation in question is new but the boundary wall is old and it was suggested that appropriate decision may be taken at the end of the Government. 3. It was pointed out in the report that the plantation in question is new but the boundary wall is old and it was suggested that appropriate decision may be taken at the end of the Government. 3. After consideration of report of the Committee, the acquisition proceedings were carried out and out of 199.75 hectares of land, vide declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 19/05/2006, only 197.18 hectares of land excluding 2.57 hectares of land was declared to be acquired. The petitioner submitted that 2.57 hectares of land, as above, was left out on the similar grounds and therefore, the discrimination has been made with the petitioner by the Committee. On the ground of being discriminated and against the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, the present writ petition was filed on 03/06/2006. 4. In this writ petition, this Court granted interim protection by way of staying dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question vide order dated 16/06/2006. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent-RIICO and on 13/05/2008, the writ petition was admitted and interim protection was made absolute. On 05/06/2008, an award was passed by the LAO. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, hostile discrimination with the petitioner became more grave when on 26/10/2009, when irrespective of the award having been passed by the LAO, on representation of MLA of the region, 3.38 hectares of land was de-acquired without any ground. On 16/12/2009, the Infrastructure Development Committee passed a resolution for de-acquisition of 3.38 hectares of land out of the instant acquisition proceedings. Alongwith the said resolution, an inspection report was enclosed wherein it was mentioned that the said de-acquisition is on account of the fact that in the de-acquired land, road, temple, Pakka construction, small industries of cement existed and therefore in the public interest, the de-acquisition is valid and for sound reasons. Therefore the de-acquisition under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 of 3.38 hectares of land of Village- Vidhani and Ramchandrapura was done on 16/03/2011 by the Ministerial Permanent Committee. 6. Therefore the de-acquisition under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 of 3.38 hectares of land of Village- Vidhani and Ramchandrapura was done on 16/03/2011 by the Ministerial Permanent Committee. 6. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is violation of provisions of Sections 5-A & 6 of the Act of 1894 and there is no strict compliance to the provisions of the Act of 1894 more specially Section 5-A has been flouted wherein the compliance of principles of natural justice is incorporated and consideration of objections is mandatory for safeguard of constitutional mandate under Article 14, 19 and 300A. No effective hearing in the proceedings has been granted, the objections have not been considered and the recommendations of the LAO and RIICO are self explanatory whereby no clean acquisition recommendations have been given to the Government and it is admitted by the LAO that the land in question is a green piece of land and is similar to the land in questions which were either not acquired or later on de-acquired. The objections of the petitioner as per the petitioner were not considered. Under Section 6 declaration, the land of the petitioner was shown to have been acquired while the lands of those with regard to whom similar recommendations were made, have been excluded and therefore, the objections were not considered in a fair, legal and justified manner. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case laws in Ganga Bishnu Swaika & Anr. v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & Ors.: AIR 1968 (SC) 615 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors.: (2005) 7 SCC 627 . Learned counsel further submitted that pick and choose method has been adopted and hostile discrimination has been caused to the petitioner since inspection of the land acquisition proceedings at the stage of Section 4, at the stage of declaration under Section 6 and under Section 48 while carrying out de-acquisition proceedings qua 3.38 hectares of land. He has relied upon the case laws in Radhey Shyam (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2011) 5 SCC 553 & Ramlal Motiramji Tayade v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 500 . He has relied upon the case laws in Radhey Shyam (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2011) 5 SCC 553 & Ramlal Motiramji Tayade v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 500 . It was also highlighted that the conduct of business rules were not followed and once the declaration was issued on 19/05/2006, the action taken by the Committee and others was vitiated as the same was dated 10/05/2007. 7. Per-cotra, Mr. RP Singh, learned AAG submitted that out of total compensation of Rs.272.43 crore, an amount of approximately 256 crore has been disbursed and a sum of Rs.1.80 crore, which is required to be paid, is pending on account of interim orders passed by this Court. It is further submitted that in Sitapura Industrial Atea, only 13 plots are vacant which are put in auction and there is heavy demand. A complete possession has been taken of 197 hectares of land and except for petitioners' land, on account of interim order dated 16/06/2006, its possession could not be taken because of which the development process is halted. He has submitted that the objections were duly considered by the LAO on 25/10/2006 which are enclosed and marked as Annexures R/1/2 and are not put to challenge whereby every objection was considered by the LAO and it was specifically held that it is not appropriate to leave the land which is in the middle of the acquisition and is highly required. The LAO report has also specified that the plants were newly installed after initiation of acquisition proceedings and only a Chokidar room was there at the place in question at the time of inspection in addition to boundary wall. The de-acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 were justified and no hostile discrimination has been committed by the respondents as the land, which was de- acquired later on, pertained to temple, road, small industries situated at the fag end near Nala and the name of the particular industries, which were already running, were specified i.e. Ridhi Sidhi Jali Udyog and Pradhan Briks Industry located at Khasra No.782, 783, 840-854 and 857 and the Committee and experts by following the due procedure of law exempted the same in public interest. As per the respondents, on 05/06/2008, after passing of the award by the LAO, a sum of Rs. As per the respondents, on 05/06/2008, after passing of the award by the LAO, a sum of Rs. 272.43 crore has been released towards compensation. It is only the petitioner who has not received compensation of Rs.1.80 crore. The contention of respondents' counsel is that the acquisition was made for public purposes, there was no malafide or colourable exercise of power, the same was in public interest for expansion of industrial area which is halted and as per settled position of law, if the acquisition proceedings are carried out for public purposes and eminent domain, the same is legal, appropriate and justified. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case laws in Somawanti v. State of Punjab: AIR 1963 (SC) 151 ; Ratilal Shakarabhai v. State of Gujarat: (1970) 2 SCC 264 ; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana: (1971)1 SCC 671 ; Daulat Singh Surana v. First Land Acquisition Collector: (2007) 1 SCC 641 ; South Central Railway v. G. Ratnam: (2007) 8 SCC 212 and Syndicate Bank v. Ramchandran Pillai: (2011) 15 SCC 398 . 8. This Court has gone through the contentions advanced by respective counsels, the judgments cited at bar and has scanned the records of the writ petitions. 9. It is an admitted fact in the writ petition that the respondents have carried out land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 for the purpose of expansion of industrial area namely; Sitapura RIICO Industrial area which is in proximity to Jaipur. Many multi-nationals, industries as well as large, middle and small sectors are situated therein. For the purpose of expansion of the same, approximately 199.75 acres of land was notified under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 27/05/2005. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 on account of the land in question being inappropriate, a green belt and if the same is left out from being acquired, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The LAO and the competent authorities, after due deliberations, vide their report dated 25/01/2006, sent recommendations to the Government whereby they have justified the action of acquisition and non-consideration of objections by specifically stating that the land in question of the petitioner falls in middle of the expansion project and cannot be left out otherwise the same will prejudice the land development. The report of the LAO specifically stated that the plants at the acquired land in question are not big and have been planted recently, no major construction is there on the land other than Chokidar room and boundary wall. The said report categorically differentiates the case of the petitioner and the claim of hostile discrimination and non-consideration of certain Khasra numbers adjoining the petitioner becomes illusionary. On perusal of Annexure R/1/2, it is clear that the land in question of the petitioner falls in between the acquired land and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that its nature is that of the lands which were left from being acquired of the similarly situated persons. The second argument pertaining to hostile discrimination by way of de- acquisition of land measuring 3.38 hectares by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 is also not tenable because the same was done after considering the fact that on the said piece of land, either some temple, road or small scale industries were there and they were operational. The names of the said industries and their location near Nala is coming on record of the Committee report which justifies the de-acquisition. In the light of above, the objection taken by the petitioner that compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A and 6 of the Act of 1894 was not carried out in accordance with law and the same is against the settled position of law is not tenable. 10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, referred to supra, are not applicable in the facts of the present case as it is held by the Supreme Court time and again that when the appropriate Government acquires the land for public purposes, the Courts cannot go into the question whether the need was genuine or not. The Apex Court has time and again also held that to tackle of problem of unemployment, industrialization of an area is in public interest and the question whether starting of the industries is in public interest or not is essentially a question that has to be decided by the Government. The Apex Court in Daulat Singh Surana (supra) has held that the right of eminent domain is the right of the State to reassert either temporarily or permanently its dominion over any piece of land on account of public exigency and for public good. The Apex Court in Daulat Singh Surana (supra) has held that the right of eminent domain is the right of the State to reassert either temporarily or permanently its dominion over any piece of land on account of public exigency and for public good. As regards the reliance upon the departmental circular that no acquisition should be carried out in fertile land etc., in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the LAO report is very clear that the plants were not big, no agricultural operation was carried out and even otherwise, the executive orders do not confer any legal enforceable right and are only of pervasive value. 11. The petitioner has not challenged the report of the LAO which has given reasons for acquisition. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of hostile discrimination, non-consideration of objections, violation of principles of natural justice are differentiated on account of the fact that no malafide is alleged disputing that the acquisition proceedings were not qua expansion of Sitapura Industrial Area in public interest. The petitioner has also not disputed the LAO order dated 25/01/2006 whereby each and very objection was duly considered. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that only on account of ex-parte interim order dated 16/06/2006, the possession and compensation has been halted and there is no other reason which is causing great prejudice for the development and expansion of the project. 12. In the light of above and considering the fact that the land in question was acquired for public purposes, there is eminent domain of the State and there is no discrimination caused to the petitioner and his objections were duly considered by the LAO as well as relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court that acquisition of land for industrial expansion is in public interest and that there was no malafide or colourable exercise of powers on the part of the respondents, this Court is of the view that the prayers made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition are not justified and the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the respondents are held to be justified. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. The interim order stands vacated and all the pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.