Vimal Kumar Gupta vs Pr.Secretary To The Govt.Indus
2022 Latest Caselaw 2778 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4680/2006

Vimal Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Kishori Sharan Gupta, R/o Plot
No. 4/89, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

                                                                         .....Petitioner

                                       Versus

1.   Pr. Secretary to the Government, Industries Department
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.   Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan,
Jaipur.

3.   Dy.    Secretary       to   the     Government,               Industries     (Gr.   I)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4.   Collector, Jaipur

5.   Land      Acquisition       Officer,       Rajasthan            State      Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan,
Jaipur.

                                                                       ....Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with
                                  Mr. JS Shekhawat, Adv. through VC



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                            Judgment / Order

Reserved On 22/02/2022
Pronounced On 01/04/2022

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

(2 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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

(3 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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. 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.

                                             (4 of 10)                 [CW-4680/2006]


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. 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

(5 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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. Vs. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & Ors.: AIR 1968 (SC)

615; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. 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. Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Ors.: (2011) 5 SCC 553 & Ramlal Motiramji

Tayade Vs. 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'

(6 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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. 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

(7 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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 Vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1963 (SC) 151;

Ratilal Shakarabhai Vs. State of Gujarat: (1970) 2 SCC 264;

Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana: (1971)1 SCC 671; Daulat

Singh Surana Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector: (2007) 1

SCC 641; South Central Railway Vs. G. Ratnam: (2007) 8

SCC 212 and Syndicate Bank Vs. 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

(8 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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

(9 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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. 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

(10 of 10) [CW-4680/2006]

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.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Raghu

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)