Villagers Of Gram Panchayat ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4867 Raj

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8472/2021

Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its
President Mathar Khan S/o Barse Khan, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Riwadi, Panchayat Samiti Sam, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Energy Department Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.     The   Rajasthan    Renewable          Energy,        Corporation    Limited
(RREC), Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur, Raj.
4. The District Collector, Jaisalmer, Collector Office, Jaisalmer,
Raj.
5. The Tehsildar (Revenue/record), Fatehgarh, Tehsil Office,
Fatehgar, District Jaisalmer Raj.
6. The Director, M/s SBE, Renewables Ten Projects Private
Limited, First Floor, World Mark-II, Asset Area-8, Hospitality,
District Aerocity, NH8, New Delhi-110037
                                                                  ----Respondents
                               Connected With


                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13818/2021
Villagers Of Gram Panchayat Circle Riwadi through Vigilant
Citizens:-
1. Thakra Ram S/o Hada Ram, aged About 35 years, Resident
of Tamachi Ram Ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh,
District jaisalmer.
2. Nure Khan S/o Saleman Khan, aged about 63 years,
Resident of Sangram ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh,
District Jaisalmer.
3. Kawaru Ram S/o Kala Ram aged about 65 years, Resident of
Tamachi Ram Ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
4. Khane Khan S/o Sangram Khan, aged about 60 years,
Resident of Sangram Ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh,
District Jaisalmer.


                      (Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:27:26 PM)
                                 (2 of 18)                     [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]


     5. Alladin S/o Saleman, aged about 65 years, Resident of
     Sangram Ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
     Jaisalmer.
     6. Abhu Khan S/o Nure Khan, aged about 58 years, Resident of
     Sangram Ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
     Jaisalmer.
     7. Sawai Lal Paliwal S/o Bheeku Lal, Aged about 50 years,
     Resident of Village Riwadi, tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
     8. Ali Khan S/o Sangram Khan, aged about 84 years, resident
     of Sangram Ki Dhani, Village Riwadi, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
     Jaisalmer.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                            Versus
     1      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
            Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
     2.     District Collector, Jaisalmer.
     3.     Tehsildar, Fatehgarh.
     4.     M/s S.B.E. Renewable Ten Projects Private Limited,
            Through Its Director, 1St Floor World-Mark-2, Asset
            Area-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, New Delhi
            110037.
     5.     Rajasthan        Renewable           Energy        Corporation      Limited,
            Through Its Executive Director, E-167, Yudhistir Marg, C-
            Scheme, Jaipur.
                                                                        ----Respondents

    For Petitioner(s)            :     None present.
    For Respondent(s)            :     Mr.Sunil Beniwal, AAG
                                       Mr.Vikas Balia, Sr.Advocate with
                                       Mr.Akshat Verma through VC



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

                                         ORDER

   Date of Order                                   :                      31.03.2022

   BY THE COURT         :     (PER HON'BLE MEHTA,J.)

REPORTABLE

(3 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

These two petitions termed to be Public Interest Litigation

question, orders No.1307 and 1317 dated 23.4.2021 whereby, the

State Government has allotted chunks of land to the respondent

M/s.SBE Renewables Ten Projects Private Limited for establishing a

solar project in the village Riwadi.

The Solar Energy Corporation of India (a Govt. of India

enterprise) issued a Letter of Award in favour of the respondent

M/s.SBE Renewables Ten Projects Private Limited (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the company') for establishing Inter State

Transmission System Connected Wind Solar Hybrid Power Projects

(Tranche-I). In furtherance of the said Award, the State

Government sanctioned allotmentof lands to the company on lease

basis for establishing the solar project. The petitioners are

opposed to the allotment of the land so made to the company for

establishing the solar power plant.

Before entering into the merits of the case, we would like to

extract the quotes of world leaders, scientists and

environmentalists on the aspects of climate change and its impact

which, by use of renewable energy, can help in reversing the

process of global warming which has started having a serious

adverse impact on the world at large.

"Solar Energy is 'Sure', 'Pure' and "Secure'." "India plans to produce 450 GWS of power through solar energy and other renewable energy sources by 2030" "gj pht lw;Z ls iSnk gqbZ gS] lw;Z ÅtkZ dk ,dek= L=ksr gS vkSj lkSj ÅtkZ lcdk [;ky j[k ldrh gS"

-Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi

"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.

                                                           -Thomas Edison, 1931



                        (4 of 18)                     [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

"And no challenge poses a Greater threat to future generations than climate change."

"no challenge - no challenge - poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."

-President Barack Obama State of the Union Address 2015

"The time is past when humankind thought it could selfishly draw on exhaustible resources. We know now the world is not a commodity."

Francois Hollande on Climate Change President of the French Republic

In this background, we are examining the challenge laid in

this Court by the petitioners to the allotment of land made in

favour of 'the company'.

Before proceeding to deal with the matters on merits, few

important preceding facts and events as they transpired during

the course of hearing need to be highlighted.

Both these writ petitions were listed in the Court on

23.03.2022 on which date, arguments were commenced in the

pre-lunch session. The petitioner's counsel addressed the Court for

a significant period of time. The Bench rose for lunch with a clear

understanding that the arguments would be resumed in the post

lunch session. However, when the arguments were resumed post-

lunch, the petitioner's counsel Shri Moti Singh was not available

and his associate Advocate Shri Joginder Singh persistently made

a request to adjourn the matters. Since, significant judicial time

had already been consumed in hearing the cases in pre-lunch

session, the Court proceeded to hear the arguments of the

respondents' counsel and thereafter, waited for the petitioner's

counsel to appear but he did not turn up in the Court till the Board

was finished and the Court rose for the day and accordingly, the

(5 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

order was reserved in both the writ petitions giving liberty to the

petitioner's counsel to submit written submissions. The matters

were posted for dictation of order today. The Registry has apprised

this Court that in the intervening period, the petitioner's counsel

moved an application to Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice alleging

that the hearing of the matter was closed in an arbitrary manner

and thus, the same should be listed before Hon'ble the Acting

Chief Justice. The said application stands rejected by Hon'ble the

Acting Chief Justice.

Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner

has presented written submissions in W.P. No.13818/2021

wherein, nothing significant has been stated on merits of the case

and only the facts narrated above have been harped upon. The

petitioner's counsel has claimed that he was busy in another Court

and thus, he was bonafide prevented from appearing before the

Division Bench till 3.40 pm. We are of the firm view that once the

matters had been taken up by the Bench and extensive arguments

had been advanced, there was no justification whatsoever for the

learned counsel representing the petitioner to have left the Bench

for other commitments. This was an act of rank discourtsey to the

Division Bench. Alongwith the written submissions, a letter dated

28.3.2022 submitted by counsel Shri Moti Singh to the President,

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association has been annexed

whereby, permission was sought by the petitioner's counsel to

appear in the Court today. However, the President of the

Advocates Association has purportedly denied such permission to

the petitioner's counsel. There is no justification for such a course

of action as other counsel have appeared to address the Court. No

(6 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

such permission is required for a lawyer to appear in the Court.

This is apparently a ploy adopted by the petitioner's counsel to

avoid and delay decision of the matters.

Be that as it may, despite all the above circumstances,

before proceeding to dictate the order, we instructed the Court

Master to convey a telephonic message to the petitioner's counsel

Shri Moti Singh that he is at liberty to address the Court by

physical or virtual mode but he bluntly refused the opportunity so

offered.

Accordingly, we propose to decide the matters on the basis

of the arguments advanced at bar, pleading of the parties and the

written submissions filed by Shri Moti Singh Advocate representing

the petitioner.

Both these writ petitions have been filed by counsels Shri

Moti Singh Rajpurohit and Shri Jogendra Singh for assailing the

allotment of land made by the District Collector, Jaisalmer to the

respondent No.6 for establishing a solar project thereupon. In the

W.P.No.8472/2021, which came to be filed by Jal Grahan Vikas

Sansthan, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer on 3.7.2021, allotment order

No.1317 dated 23.4.2021 (Annex.11) has been challenged

whereas, in W.P.No.13818/2021, which came to be filed by

villagers of Gram Panchayat Circle Riwadi on 30.9.2021, the

allotment order No.1307 (Annex.13) dated 23.4.2021 and

allotment order No.1317 (Annex.14) dated 23.4.2021 made in

favour of the respondent, the Director, M/s.SBE Renewable Ten

Projects Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the solar company'),

have been challenged.

(7 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have alleged that

the action of the District Collector, Jaisalmer in making the

aforesaid allotments apart from being totally illegal, is also highly

detrimental to the areas of the village Riwadi because it will

adversely affect the conservation of the lands and the free flow

and collection of the rain water shall be obstructed. The

petitioners have tried to demonstrate that the lands in question

are covered by prohibited categories under the relevant statutes

and are not available for allotment and hence, the impugned

allotment orders are bad in the eyes of law.

The State Government has filed pertinent reply asserting

that the entire chunk of land allotted for the purpose of

establishing the solar power plant is owned by the government;

no part thereof is covered by any restricted category i.e. Oran,

Agore, Naadi, Canal, Talab etc. All the lands allotted to the

respondent solar company are entered as Banjar/Barani in the

revenue records. The plea of the petitioner Jal Grahan Vikas

Sansthan regarding it having undertaken duly sanctioned

development works for water conservation on the lands which

have been allotted in favour of the respondent solar company, has

been emphatically denied in the reply of the State Government. At

Para No.4(9) of the reply, it has been specifically pleaded that the

project works allegedly undertaken by the petitioner Sanstha are

mostly on private khatedari lands. The map submitted on record

by the petitioner Sanstha has been disputed on the ground that it

does not bear the signature of any revenue official.

Shri Moti Singh Rajpurohit Advocate advanced extensive

arguments contending that the lands in question provide natural

(8 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

flow of rain water to the water bodies which have been developed

by the petitioner Sanstha. These all lands in question are recorded

as water bodies and water ways etc. in the revenue record and as

such, the allotment thereof is contrary to the mandatory

provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the judgment rendered by

this Court in the case of Kalyan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.51/2020 decided on 29.6.2021. He vehemently and fervently

contended that if the solar power project is permitted to be set up

upon the lands in question, it would wreak havoc in the entire

area and the vegetation existing thereupon would be destroyed

and all water ways would be obstructed leading to destruction of

the Naadis and other water bodies. He further submitted that the

area beyond 50 acres could not have been allotted for the

purposes of setting up the solar power plant and as such also, the

impugned allotment orders are bad in the eyes of law.

Per contra, Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG representing the

State Authorities and Dr.Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Shri Dharmesh Sharma and Shri Akshat Verma

Advocates representing the respondent company have vehemently

and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri

Rajpurohit.

Shri Beniwal contended that no part of the land allotted to

the respondent company for the purpose of establishment of solar

power plant is covered under any of the prohibited categories. All

the khasras are entered in the revenue record as Banjar or Barani

and hence, are available for allotment. The argument advanced by

the petitioner's counsel that more than 50 acres land could not

(9 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

have been allotted for the purpose of establishment of solar power

plant is refuted on the strength of the notification

No.F.6(28)Rev.6/2014/Par/4 dated 22.2.2017 as per which,

amendment was made in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment

of Land for Setting Up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy

Sources) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of

2007') and now, it is permissible to allot the land for the

renewable energy power plants in the following dimensions:

S.No.           Nature of power plant                           Maximum area to
                                                                  be allotted
  1      Wind Farm/Wind Power Project                          3 Hectare per MW
  2      Solar Power Plant using-

(i) Solar Photo Voltaic (SPV) on 2.5 Hectare per MW Crystalline Technology

(ii) Solar Photo Voltaic (SPV) on 3.5 Hectare per MW Crystalline Technology with tracker

(iii) Solar Photo Voltaic (SPV) on thin 3.5 Hectare per MW film/Amorphous Technology with or without tracker

(iv) Solar Thermal [Concentrate (a) upto Plant Load Solar Power (CSP)] Parabolic Factor (PLF) of 21% Trough/Tower/other technology with 3.5 Hectare per MW and without storage (b) for every 1% increase in Plant Load Factor (PLF), 0.15 Hectare per MW additional land shall be allotted.

3 Biomass Power Plant 2.5 Hectare per MW

The area of the land to be allotted is not limited to 50 acres

and would have to be calculated on basis of generation capacity of

the plant.

(10 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

Shri Beniwal thus submitted that the plea of the petitioners

regarding the lands in question were not available to be allotted

for the solar power plant is misconceived.

Dr.Vikas Balia, learned senior counsel assisted by

representing the respondent company to whom, the land has been

allotted for setting up of the solar power plant urged that the

allotment of land has been facilitated by the State Government to

set up the renewable solar energy project of immense national

importance under the Renewable Energy Mission of the Govt. of

India. The Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) is the major

player in the sector's development. It has been authorised by the

Central Government to be the nodal agency for implementation of

a number of schemes of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy

(MNRE). Under this Scheme, the SECI has been implementing Grid

Connected Solar PV Power Projects awarded under "Guidelines for

Tariff Based Competitive Bidding Process for Procurement of Power

from Grid Connected Solar PV Power Projects". The present project

i.e. SECI Tranche-I Hybrid 450 MW project has been awarded to

the respondent company by the SECI under transparent

competitive bidding process at a very competitive price for

generation of electricity from renewable energy sources. The

agreement was signed on 31.12.2019 between the SECI and the

respondent company and the project was to be commissioned

within 18 months from 7.5.2021. This date has been extended to

June 2022 because of the intervening situation created by the

Covid pandemic. The delay in commissioning of the project will

lead to serious adverse financial impact upon the respondent

company. The power generated from the project will be supplied

(11 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

to various States for meeting the renewable energy purchase

obligations under the Mission. Before making the land allotment,

the matter was thoroughly examined by the Rajasthan Renewable

Energy Corporation, which made the recommendation for

allotment of the land in favour of the respondent solar company

on 28.9.2020. The approval was granted by the Cabinet on

3.4.2021 and thereafter, the government lands have been allotted

to the company on lease basis for 30 years by virtue of the

impugned allotment orders. Ownership of the land will continue to

vest in the Government. None of lands highlighted in the petitions

which are actually entered in the revenue records as public utility

lands and water bodies are covered under the lands allotted to the

respondent company. Regarding the applications filed by the

petitioners pertaining to cutting of trees, closure of public ways

etc., Shri Balia submitted that these assertions were not a part of

original writ petitions and this are nothing but afterthought. The

petitioners are trying to misuse the judicial process in the garb of

Public Interest Litigation. Shri Balia urged that the company

undertook detailed impact assessment for setting up the solar

power plant regarding the environmental and social sides over the

area in question and the study report concludes that the project

area comprises of non-forest waste lands and fallow lands. It is

sparsely covered by shrubs and thorny bushes. There are no

plantations or orchards. There was no sighting of any known rare,

endangered, or ecologically significant animal or plant species as

reported during consultation with Forest Officials or the Desert

National Park. Shri Balia further submitted that looking to the

grave consequences of global warming, which the world at large is

(12 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

facing, dependency on fossil fuel generated energy has to be

drastically reduced. Rajasthan has the gift of highest solar

radiation in the globe and proper exploitation of this endless

source of renewable energy will have a great impact on reducing

damage being caused to the environment owing to use of fossil

fuels for generation of energy. He thus urged that larger public

interest would be served by establishing such power projects for

generation of renewable energy as they provide perpetual endless

clean energy which in turn is of immensely benefit to the

environment rather than harming the same. On these grounds,

Shri Balia craves that the writ petition be dismissed.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

the bar and have gone through the material available on record.

At the outset, we are persuaded to note that there has been

an intentional concealment of material fact while filing

W.P.No.13818/2021. The W.P.No.8472/2021 filed by the Jal

Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi through its President Mathar Khan

was presented by counsels Shri Moti Singh Rajpurohit and Shri

Jogendra Singh on 3.7.2021 wherein, the order No.1317 dated

23.4.2021 (Annex.11) making allotment of land to the respondent

company for setting up of the solar power plant was challenged.

W.P.No.13818/2021 came to be presented in this Court on

30.9.2021 by counsel Shri Moti Singh and Shri Jogendra Singh

wherein, allotment orders No.1307 and 1317 dated 23.4.2021

(Annex.13 & 14) have been challenged. Significantly enough, the

factum of challenge laid to the order No.1317 dated 23.4.2021

(Annex.11 in W.P.No.8472/2021) was not disclosed in this writ

petition. The conduct of the concerned persons is deplorable.

(13 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

The fundamental ground of challenge to the impugned

allotment orders in both the writ petitions is that there is no

provision for allotment of land for a power project and that the

land can only be allotted for a power plant and solar park and

thus, the impugned allotments are bad in the eye of law. It is also

averred that as the land in question is comprised of catchment

areas, water tanks and ponds and thus, by virtue of the

restrictions imposed by the Rules of 2007, the land was not

available for allotment.

The contention of petitioner's counsel that the lands in

question are falling in the category of restricted land in terms of

Rules of 2007 is totally untenable in view of the pertinent reply to

the writ petition filed by the State, wherein it has been asserted

that none of the lands allotted to the respondent solar company

falls in the restricted categories. The assertions made by the

respondents No.1, 4 and 5 at Para No.1 of the parawise reply to

W.P.No.8472/2021 are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of

ready reference:

"That the contents of para 1(I)-(IV) are denied as averred. It is submitted here that a perusal of allotment Order dated 23.04.2021 (Annexure-11) clearly shows that no land which is categorized as reserved for collection of water in the revenue records has been allotted by the answering respondents to respondent no.6- Company. The proceedings undertaken by the answering respondents are completely in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenuer (Allotment of Land for Setting Up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2007')."

This specific assertion of the respondents has not been

controverted by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder etc. The

(14 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

petitioners in W.P.No.8472/2021 have filed a supplementary

pleading through an Interlocutory Application No.01/2021 alleging

that the ecological system of the area concerned will be adversely

affected by setting up of the power project because the trees etc.

will be cut down. However, the said assertion is also untenable in

view of the fact that the lands in question which have been

allotted for setting up of the solar power project are pertinently

categorized as Banjar or Barani in the revenue record. The bald

plea of the petitioners that in common parlance, the allotted lands

are being used as Naadis etc. is of no avail because the

restrictions which have been imposed in the Rules of 2007 have to

be strictly applied as per the category of lands entered in the

revenue records. The specific submission of the counsel

representing the respondent solar company was that no boundary

wall will be erected on the area in question and that the same will

be protected by a fencing which would not obstruct the natural

flow of water in any manner. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner

that the setting up of the solar power project would obstruct the

natural water flow in the area thereby causing an adverse impact

on the water bodies etc. located around the land in question is

also untenable and without any foundation.

We make it clear that when the solar power project is being

commissioned, as far as possible, due care shall be taken to

ensure that the natural water flow through the area in question is

not obstructed and the commissioning of the project does not

have any adverse affect on the water flow in recorded water

bodies existing in the adjoining areas. Regarding the plea of the

petitioners that the ecology in the area (green trees etc.) will be

(15 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

disturbed, this Court is of the firm opinion that if an impact

assessment is done of the two situations viz. setting up of the

green energy project of national importance i.e. the solar power

plant vis-a-vis the possible damage which might be caused to the

greenery in the area, without any doubt, the preference for the

former would prevail over the latter by a great margin. It may be

noted here that the village Riwadi is in the extreme western part

of the State covered under the Thar Desert and as such, no

significant greenery or foliage ever survives in this area. In

addition thereto, this Court was informed that under the Letter of

Award and the terms of the contract, the Company would have to

plant a certain number of trees. Hence, the apprehension

expressed by the petitioners that setting up of the solar power

project would damage the ecology of the area, is misfounded. It is

a scientifically established fact that Western Rajasthan is the area

with highest solar radiation in the world. The use of fossil fuels for

generation of electricity is having a disastrous impact on the entire

globe and the ill-effects thereof are visible to one and all. There is

ample scientific evidence to show that the use of fossil fuels for

producing energy significantly contributes to generation of

greenhouse gases which in turn, adds to the ever growing

temperature levels of the mother earth and hence, any effort to

offset the damage by exploiting renewable sources of power

generation i.e. wind power, solar power or hydro power is the call

of the day. Such efforts will have to be given precedence if the

humanity is to survive. Rajasthan is strongly dependent on fossil

fuel (coal) generated electricity as thermal power plants are the

primary source of power supply. With the recent shortfall in the

(16 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

supply of coal, the State is facing serious energy crises resulting

into the power companies being compelled to procure electricity

from other States by paying hefty tariffs. Thus, optimal generation

of solar energy in Western Rajasthan by setting up such projects

as has been awarded to the respondent company will put the

State on the world map as being the leading generator of green

energy through solar power. The visionary solar power generation

of the Govt. of India through the Solar Energy Corporation of India

(SECI) is one such initiative, which the Courts would be loathe to

obstruct by invoking the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction.

Thus, a comparative analysis of the situation at hand weighs

heavily in favour of facilitating the setting up of the solar power

plant rather than permitting any persons with vested interests to

obstruct the same.

Shri Moti Singh Rajpurohit heavily relied on the Division

Bench judgment in the case of Kalyan Singh (supra) in support

of the contention that land has been allotted for the solar power

project in violation of the Rules of 2007 is of no avail because

even in the said judgment, this Court has held that Rule 12A of

the Rules of 2007 does not debar the State Government from

allotting the land in favour of an entrepreneur for developing the

solar park, if is otherwise permissible in terms of the Rules of

2007. As defined under Rule 2(jjj) "Solar park" is a group of solar

plants/solar power plants/solar PV power plants/solar thermal

power plants/solar farms in the same location used for production

of electric power. In Kalyan Singh's case (supra), the Division

Bench cancelled the allotment of lands covered by public utility for

the power project in question. However, in the present case, going

(17 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

by the admitted entries in the revenue record, no part of the

allotted land is covered by public utilities or restricted lands and

hence, the allotment order in question is perfectly in tune with the

Rules of 2007. In addition thereto, we may take note of Section

20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as below:

"20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project.--(1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, section 20B and clause (ha) of section 41, the expression "infrastructure project" means the category of projects and infrastructure Sub-Sectors specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of infrastructure projects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule relating to any Category of projects or Infrastructure Sub-Sectors.

(3) Every notification issued under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may

(18 of 18) [CW-8472/2021 & 13818/2021]

be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that notification."

Apparently thus, granting any injunction against the

infrastructural project of great importance to the mother earth and

the entire humanity would be contrary to the mandate of the

statutory provision.

The plea put forth by Shri Rajpurohit that more than 50

acres land could not have been allotted for the project is also futile

in view of the State Government's notification

F.6(28)Rev.6/2014/Par/4 dated 22.2.2017.

As a consequence, we are of the opinion that there has been

a blatant concealment of fact in W.P.No.13818/2021 regarding the

previous challenge laid to the order No.1317 dated 23.4.2021 in

W.P.No.8472/2021.

As a result of the above discussion, both these writ petitions

(W.P.No.8472/2021 & 13818/2021) are devoid of merit and are

hence, dismissed. Cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the

petitioners in each writ petition which shall be deposited with the

Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, within a period of 30

days from today failing which, the District Collector, Jaisalmer shall

take appropriate steps for recovery thereof as per law. The District

Collector, Jaisalmer and the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer

shall ensure that no persons with vested interest obstruct

commissioning of the solar plant in question.

                                    (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J                                   (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

                                   /tarun goyal/







Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)