[Cites 45, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:48206]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17703/2025
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Sahab Ram, aged about 39
years, Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
2. Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 62 years,
Resident of Ward No. 25, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
3. Subash Chander S/o Shri Niku Ram, aged about 43
years, Resident of Ward No. 09, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Roop Ram, aged about 39 years,
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
5. Indra D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 56 years, Resident
of Surawali, Goluwala, Hanumangarh.
6. Kamla D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 63 years,
Resident of Pakka Saharana, Hanumangarh.
7. Kaushlya D/o Shri Sahab Ram, aged about 37 years,
Resident of Narsinghpura Barani, Manjuvas, Sri
Ganganagar.
8. Chunni Ram S/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 66 years,
Resident of Ward No. 25, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
9. Data Ram S/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 56 years,
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
10. Parmeshwari Devi D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 65
years, Resident of Pakka Saharana, Hanumangarh.
11. Menpal S/o Shri Sahab Ram, aged about 34 years,
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
12. Baadho Devi W/o Shri Sahab Ram, aged about 74
years, Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
13. Mani Ram S/o Shri Jiwan Ram, aged about 79 years,
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
14. Maheshwari Devi W/o Shri Sultan Singh, aged about 73
years, Resident of Ward No. 25, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
15. Monika D/o Shri Sultan Singh, aged about 46 years,
Resident of Ward No. 25, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
16. Mehar Chand S/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 70 years,
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:56:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (2 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
17. Vidhya D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 81 years,
Resident of Sabuana, Fazilka, Punjab.
18. Shakuntala D/o Shri Sahab Ram, aged about 42 years,
Resident of Narsinghpura Barani, Manjuvas, Sri
Ganganagar.
19. Sharda D/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged
about 45 years, Resident of Takarwali, Sri Ganganagar
(Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
20. Suman D/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged
about 47 years, Resident of Chohilanwali, Hanumangarh
(Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
21. Vidhya D/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged
about 45 years, Resident of Kaluana, Sirsa, Haryana
(Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
22. Manju Devi D/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged
about 38 years, Resident of Chohilawali, Hanumangarh
(Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
23. Chanderkala D/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Sohan Lal,
aged about 53 years, Resident of Surawali,
Hanumangarh (Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
24. Sunita D/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged
about 34 years, Resident of 26 Slw, Hanumangarh
(Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
25. Jagdish S/o Late Savitri D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about
43 years, Resident of Chilkani Dhab, Sirsa, Haryana
(Legal Heir Of Savitri).
26. Arvind S/o Late Savitri D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about
42 years, Resident of Chilkani Dhab, Sirsa, Haryana
(Legal Heir Of Savitri).
27. Pala Ram S/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged
about 44 years, Resident of Chilkani Dhab, Sirsa,
Haryana (Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
28. Rajiv Kumar S/o Late Saraswati D/o Shri Hari Ram,
aged about 31 years, Resident of Chilkani Dhab, Sirsa,
Haryana (Legal Heir Of Saraswati).
29. Rekha D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 55 years,
Resident of Village 21 Sds, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:56:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (3 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
30. Ranveer S/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 52 years,
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
31. Sharda D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 47 years,
Resident of Kaluana, Sirsa, Haryana.
32. Sajani Devi W/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 74 years,
Resident of Ward No. 19, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
33. Santro D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 73 years,
Resident of Nuhiyan Wali, Sirsa, Haryana.
34. Sunder D/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 55 years,
Resident of Ward No. 04, Sirasar, Hanumangarh.
35. Surender S/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about 56 years,
Resident of Ward No. 20, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
36. Krishna Devi D/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 69 years,
Resident of Kheowali, Fazilka, Punjab.
37. Mukh Ram S/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 71 years,
Resident of Ward No. 06, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
38. Mahender Singh S/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 69
years, Resident of 279, Ward No. 43, Sector 6 L,
Hanumangarh.
39. Rajender Prasad S/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 59
years, Resident of Ward No. 06, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
40. Rajeshwari D/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 65 years,
Resident of Village 36 Ptp, Sadulshahar, Sri Ganganagar.
41. Sunder Devi D/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 60 years,
Resident of Shatirwala, Fazilka, Punjab.
42. Surender Kumar S/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 56
years, Resident of Ward No. 06, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
43. Savitri Devi D/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 68 years,
Resident of Shatirwala, Fazilka, Punjab.
44. Ravinder Kumar S/o Shri Mukh Ram, aged about 50
years, Resident of Ward No. 06, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
45. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, aged about 39 years,
Resident of Ward No. 09, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
46. Mahender Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, aged about 30
years, Resident of Ward No. 09, Lalgarh, Sri
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:56:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (4 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
Ganganagar.
47. Jeet Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh, aged about 77 years,
Resident of Gali No. 2, Sahib Baba Deep Singh Nagar,
Sri Mukstar Sahib, Punjab.
48. Prithvi Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh, aged about 76
years, Resident of Ward No. 02, 9Dd, Sri Ganganagar.
49. Malkit Singh S/o Shri Kaur Singh, aged about 80 years,
Resident of Chak 1 Bld, Sri Vijaynagar, Sri Ganganagar.
50. Nazar Singh S/o Shri Vichitar Singh, aged about 84
years, Resident of Sammewali, Sri Muktsar Sahib,
Punjab.
51. Hardeep Singh S/o Shri Kaur Singh, aged about 65
years, Resident of Ward No. 02, 9Dd, Sri Ganganagar.
52. Sukhpal Singh S/o Shri Nazar Singh, aged about 64
years, Resident of Sammewali, Sri Muktsar Sahib,
Punjab.
53. Chanderkala W/o Shri Liladhar, aged about 79 years,
Resident of 15 Lakkar Mandi, Sri Ganganagar.
54. Kaushlya Devi W/o Shri Govind Ram, aged about 75
years, Resident of Ward No. 02, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
55. Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Govind Ram, aged about 44
years, Resident of Ward No. 02, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
56. Prithvi Raj S/o Shri Devi Lal, aged about 55 years,
Resident of Ward No. 11, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
57. Ramji Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal, aged about 47 years,
Resident of Ward No. 11, Lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
58. Shakuntala W/o Shri Mahender Kumar, aged about 36
years, Resident of Ward No. 10, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
59. Manju Bala W/o Shri Sulender Kumar, aged about 33
years, Resident of Ward No. 10, Lalgarh, Sri
Ganganagar.
----petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through Defense Estates Officer (DEO)
Circle Bikaner, Ministry of Defense, Government of
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:56:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (5 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
India, Principal Directorate, Defense Estates, South-
Western Command Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Home
(Group-I) Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, Collectorate, Sri
Ganganagar.
4. The Land Execution Officer Cum Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
5. The Tehsildar, Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Sher Singh Rathore.
Mr. Deelip Kawadia (CGSC) with
Mr. Pooshan Rastogi and Ms. Nidhi
Singhvi.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE
Reserved on: 10/11/2025
Pronounced on: 18/12/2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution claiming following relief(s):-
"A. the preliminary Notification dt 14.11.2023(Annex.
1), the decision of the objections required to be heard
under Section 15 of the Act of 2013, the obligation of
declaration dt 12.11.2024(Annex. 7) pursuant to section
19 (1) of the Act of 2013. the notice dt 11.08.2024, the
award dt 25.07.2025 and the entire land acquisition
proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. the Respondents-Authorities may kindly be directed
not to acquire the land of the petitioners pursuant to
the aforesaid preliminary Notification dt 14.11.2023 and
the exercise carried pursuant to the same and the land
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (6 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
may, kindly be declared to be free from such acquisition
proceedings.
C. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit may also kindly be granted in favour of the
petitioners.
D. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to
the petitioners."
2. Brief facts relevant for this case are that the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the
entirety of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the
authorities under The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act of 2013"), citing a sequence of
mandatory statutory violations. The petitioners hold lands
situated in Chak 21 SDS, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, which form the subject matter of the impugned
acquisition proceedings. The cause of action for the instant writ
petition emanates from the preliminary Notification dated
14.11.2023(Annex.1) issued by the Home (Group-9)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, under Section 11(1) of
the Act of 2013 proposing acquisition of 130.349 hectares of
private land in the aforesaid location alongside 2.476 hectares of
government land for establishment works of the Forward
Composite Aviation Base ('FCAB') under the Defence Estate
Officer Circle Bikaner, Ministry of Defence(Annex.1). In
pursuance of the procedural safeguards mandated under the Act
of 2013, a prior Notification under Section 4(1) thereof was
issued on 30.03.2022 for conducting the Social Impact
Assessment ('SIA') Study, as referenced in the Notification dated
14.11.2023(Annex.1). The petitioners contend that the
mandatory requirements for the SIA were flagrantly violated, as
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (7 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
the authorities proceeded to issue the Preliminary
Notification(Annex.1) under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 on
14.11.2023 without conducting the requisite public hearing and
without the involvement of the affected agriculturists.
Furthermore, the preliminary Notification dated
14.11.2023(Annex.1) is challenged on the grounds that it was
issued not within the statutory 12-month period from the
appraisal of the SIA Report, with the authorities allegedly
concealing the relevant date. Following this, the mandatory
preliminary survey under Section 12 was entirely bypassed, and
the hearing of objections under Section 15 was conducted in a
cursory and mechanical manner, leading to the rejection of all
objections without proper basis. A significant violation
highlighted is the complete non-compliance with the provisions
governing Rehabilitation and Resettlement ('R&R'). Despite the
appointment of the Divisional Commissioner as the Administrator
for the R&R Scheme in the preliminary Notification, no R&R
Scheme was ever prepared, shared with the affected
agriculturists, or subjected to the mandatory public hearing
under Section 16 of the Act of 2013. Ignoring these foundational
procedural defects, the authorities advanced to the subsequent
stages, publishing the Declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act
of 2013 on 12.11.2024(Annex.7). This Declaration, made
following a joint survey, is also challenged on the ground that
the authorities failed to carry out the necessary requirements
subsequent to its publication. The final culmination of the
proceedings, the Award dated 25.07.2025, is also challenged, as
it was passed straight away and is alleged to be in direct
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (8 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
contravention of the mandatory requirements of Sections 26 and
27 of the Act of 2013 concerning the fair determination of
compensation. Under these circumstances of alleged continuous
and deliberate bypassing of the mandatory scheme of the 2013
Act, the petitioners, being aggrieved, have preferred the instant
writ petition to challenge and seek the quashing of the
Preliminary Notification dated 14.11.2023(Annex.1), the
rejection of objections, the Declaration dated 12.11.2024(Annex.
7), the Award dated 25.07.2025(Annex.8), and the entire land
acquisition proceedings.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
statutory safeguards incorporated to protect the rights of
agriculturists have been disregarded at every stage, rendering
the impugned actions unsustainable in law. He submits that the
respondents failed to conduct the mandatory public hearings
envisaged under the Act, although, the preliminary Notification
refers to the issuance of the SIA Notification dated 30.03.2022
(Annex.R/1), no public hearing under Section 5 of the Act of
2013 was conducted, nor were any notices issued to the affected
agriculturists.
3.1. He submits that the record neither indicate as to
when the Expert Group appraised the SIA report or approved it,
nor does it indicate whether the preliminary Notification dated
14.11.2023(Annex.1) under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013
was issued within one year of such appraisal and in the absence
of a lawful SIA process, the entire acquisition stands vitiated,
and the SIA, if prepared, must be deemed to have lapsed.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (9 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
3.2. He further submits that the publication of a preliminary
Notification dated 14.11.2023 (Annex.1) under Section 11(1) of the
Act of 2013 must be followed by a preliminary survey of the land
under Section 12 of the Act of 2013 which was never carried out
and there is no material which suggests that any on-site
inspection or interaction with agriculturists took place. Since
several statutory rights, including those relating to rehabilitation
and resettlement, flow from the survey report, the failure to
conduct this survey under Section 12 of act of 2013 strikes at
the very root of the acquisition and invalidates all consequential
proceedings.
3.3. He contends that the objections filed by the
petitioners and other affected persons under Section 15 of Act of
2013 were rejected in a cursory, mechanical manner, without
any proper application of mind (Annex.2).
3.4. He further contends that the order rejecting
objections (Annex.4 and 5) is unreasoned and unsupported by
relevant material, even objections specifically relating to
rehabilitation and resettlement, which were referred to the Land
Acquisition Officer for determination, remained unaddressed. He
further submits that this mechanical rejection defeats the
statutory right to object and, therefore, vitiates the entire
acquisition process.
3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further fervently
highlights the fact that the statutory procedure under Section 16
of Act of 2013 regarding preparation of the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme has not been followed and also, no survey
or census was conducted by the Administrator, no draft scheme
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (10 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
was prepared in consultation with affected families, and the
mandatory public hearing under Section 16(5) of Act of 2013
was not held. In addition, he submits that the authorities
presumed, without basis, that the agriculturists possessed
alternate means of livelihood, whereas their only livelihood is
dependent on the acquired agricultural land.
3.6. He further submits that such non-compliance with
Section 16 of Act of 2013, nullifies all subsequent steps. He
further submits with respect to the award dated 25.07.2025
(Annex.8), that the same is based on a false narration of events.
Although, the record mentions preparation of an award on
09.07.2025 (Annex.8), the minutes of the meeting held on that
date reveal only discussions with the Ministry of Defence and no
preparation or finalization of any award. On this ground alone,
counsel for the petitioners implores the Court to set aside the
impugned award dated 25.07.2025.
3.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
award violates Sections 26 and 27 of the Act of 2013, as the
Collector failed to consider relevant sale deeds and market data
of the surrounding area as instead of applying the statutory
formula for determining average sale prices and market value,
the authority completed the exercise as a mere formality.
3.8. Relying on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for
the petitioners implored the Court to quash and set aside the
impugned proceedings in toto and also prays for acceptance of
the instant writ petition.
3.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the impugned acquisition stands vitiated in view of the legal
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (11 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reliance is
placed on Rajendra Shankar Shukla v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2015) 10 SCC 400, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court reaffirmed that the right to property under Article 300-A is
a constitutional right and that any acquisition or dispossession
undertaken without strict adherence to statutory procedure and
payment of fair compensation is unconstitutional. Reference is
also made to State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126,
wherein Hon'ble Apex held that the State cannot forcibly
dispossess any person of land without following due process of
law, and that taking possession without lawful acquisition and
compensation amounts to a violation of Article 300-A. Learned
counsel further relies on State of U.P. v. Basant Kumar,
(2005) 12 SCC 77, wherein Hon'ble Apex held that statutory
procedural safeguards--such as issuance of notice, grant of
hearing, and conduct of proper inquiry--are mandatory, and any
deviation from these requirements renders the entire acquisition
invalid. Attention is also drawn to Lajja Ram v. State of
Punjab, (2013) 11 SCC 235, wherein it was held that land
vests in the State only after a lawful award is passed and actual
possession is taken in accordance with law. Counsel further
refers to Gojer Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal,
(2013) 16 SCC 660, wherein the Supreme Court held that
failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under
the acquisition statute renders the action legally unsustainable.
On the strength of these authorities, it is submitted that the
respondents have failed to follow the mandatory safeguards
under the Act of 2013, depriving the petitioners of their property
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (12 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
without due process, and therefore the acquisition warrants
interference.
4. Per contra, Mr.Deelip kawadia, learned counsel
representing the Union of India (Defence Estates Officer),
Bikaner, on the contrary, makes following submissions:-
4.1. He contends that the writ petition is wholly devoid of
merit and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. He submits
that the award dated 25.07.2025 (Annex.8) was declared by the
Competent Authority after convening the requisite meeting.
Determination of compensation, including assessment of market
value and valuation methodology, lies exclusively within the
jurisdiction of statutory authorities under the Act. Questions
relating to valuation or adequacy of compensation involve
disputed facts and are not amenable to adjudication under
Article 226, especially when statutory remedies are available.
4.2. He submits that the acquisition of 328 acres of land
near the Indo-Pak border for establishing the FCAB at Lalgarh
Jattan is a project of critical strategic importance, directly linked
to national security and defence preparedness. The proceedings
have reached their final stage, and any interference at this stage
would seriously impede the timely execution of a vital defence
installation.
4.3. He further submits that the SIA was duly conducted
through M/s Prabhu Foundation under Chapter II of the Act of
2013. The report documents consultations with local residents,
photographs (Annex. R/1), and public hearings. Notices were
widely circulated at government offices and published in
newspapers. Pursuant to the notice (Annex. R/2) dated
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (13 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
19.09.2022, a formal public hearing was held on 27.09.2022
(Annex. R/4), where objections were received, considered, and
recorded the same day. These proceedings fully comply with the
statutory requirements of transparency and public participation,
rendering the petitioner's allegations unfounded.
4.4. He further contends that after completion of the SIA
process, an Independent Multi-Disciplinary Expert Group was
constituted (Annex.R/5) under Section 7 of Act of 2013, which
evaluated the SIA report and furnished
recommendations(Annex. R/6). The Land Acquisition Officer
forwarded the appraisal to the District Collector, and the
preliminary Notification dated 14.11.2023 (Annex.1) under
Section 11 of Act of 2013 was subsequently issued and
published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 14.11.2023 (Annex.R/8),
well within the statutory period of twelve months from the date
of SIA appraisal. Thus, the contentions of delay or procedural
irregularity are, according to counsel, misleading and contrary to
the record.
4.5. He further submits that the Notification dated
14.11.2023 (Annex.1) issued under Section 11 of the Act, 2013
clearly provides a 60-day period for filing objections before the
Collector under Section 15 of Act of 2013, as stated in the
concluding unnumbered paragraph of the Notification
dated14.112023 (Annex.1). Hence, the petitioners cannot be
allowed to stall or delay a project of such paramount national
significance.
4.6. He further submits that with respect to objections
under Section 15 of Act of 2013 that each objection was
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (14 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
examined in detail. Reports were obtained from the Tehsildar
and other relevant departments, and reasoned orders were
passed rejecting the objections (Annex.R/9). The Tehsildar's
report, corroborated by the SIA findings, clearly records that no
residential or commercial structures were affected and no
displacement or rehabilitation was necessitated. The contention
of improper consideration of objections is therefore
misconceived.
4.7. He further fervently contends that affected
landowners were duly informed at every stage. Notices for joint
survey dated 20.08.2024 (Annex.R/10) were issued to all
concerned persons to ensure their participation and thus, those
who chose not to attend were informed that the proceedings
would lawfully continue in their absence. Joint surveys were
accordingly conducted with the participation of available
landholders, and all relevant data were recorded transparently.
Hence, the plea of violation of natural justice or lack of notice is
untenable.
4.8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits
that the State Government, by Notification dated 14.11.2023
(Annex.1), appointed the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, as
Administrator under Sections 16 to 18 of the Act of 2013.
Pursuant to the appointment, a detailed survey was conducted
on 16.10.2024, and the Administrator submitted a report on
28.10.2024 concluding that none of the affected families
required rehabilitation or resettlement (Annex.R/11), as no
residential house, building, or livelihood source was adversely
impacted. The number of eligible families were nil, and
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (15 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
therefore, the provisions of Section 16 of Act of 2013 has no
application.
4.9. In view of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that the entire acquisition was
undertaken in full conformity with the Act of 2013. Procedural
safeguards, opportunities of hearing, and statutory requirements
were strictly followed. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate
any violation of law or any prejudice suffered by them. Their
allegations are vague, unsupported by record, and constitute an
abuse of process. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed with costs.
4.10. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits
that the legality of the acquisition stands fortified by
authoritative judicial pronouncements. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estate Officer,
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Nirmala Devi
Civil Appeal No.7707/2025, wherein it was held that
rehabilitation is not mandatory in every acquisition and that a
claim of deprivation of livelihood cannot, by itself, invalidate
acquisition proceedings when compensation is duly provided
under the Act of 2013. Reference is also made to Heera Singh
Pangtey v. State of Uttarakhand 2022 SCC OnLine Utt
149, where it was held that individual or community rights
cannot override the defence needs of the country, and that
statutory protections cannot dilute or impede land acquisition
undertaken for national security purposes. Further reliance is
placed on Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 4562/2022 decided by the Patna High Court, holding
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (16 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
that even if procedural irregularities in the SIA process or
consideration of expert recommendations are alleged, the High
Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226, would not interfere with large-scale public infrastructure
projects.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits
that the writ petition is wholly untenable as the land has been
acquired for establishing the FCAB, a project of critical national
security importance arising from operational requirements under
Operation Sindoor. The acquisition is essential for defence
preparedness, and no challenge to such a strategic project is
maintainable under Article 226.
5.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and
laches, as the acquisition proceedings began in 2022 and
culminated in the final award dated 25.07.2025. Despite being
aware of each stage, the petitioners remained silent and have
approached this Court only after the award, which is legally
impermissible. Their prolonged inaction amounts to clear
acquiescence, especially when compensation of nearly ₹22
crores already stands sanctioned.
5.2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also
submits that the entire process was undertaken strictly in
accordance with the 2013 Act. The SIA was conducted after due
public consultation, objections were invited and considered,
statutory committees were constituted, and all
recommendations were duly forwarded to the competent
authority (Annex.R/1 to R/6).
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (17 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
5.3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
contends that the acquisition proceedings were conducted
strictly in accordance with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The
acquisition proposal and SIA Report were duly examined at the
competent level and found to serve a bona fide public purpose
(Annex.R/7). Accordingly, the Notification for acquisition of
132.825 hectares was issued on 14.11.2023 (Annex. 1)and
published in two local newspapers on 06.12.2023 (Annex.R/13).
All affected persons were invited to file objections within sixty
days, and the sixteen objections received were duly considered
and decided.
5.4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that all objections filed under Section 15 of the Act of
2013 were duly received, examined and decided in accordance
with law, and no material has been placed on record by the
petitioners to show that they are entitled to rehabilitation. The
preliminary survey, which forms the statutory basis for
determining eligibility, clearly records that the petitioners do not
fall within the category of persons requiring rehabilitation, and
therefore no such benefit can be extended to them.
5.5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that a joint survey dated 16.10.2024 was conducted,
and the survey report dated 16.10.2024 was examined for
rehabilitation and resettlement. The competent authorities,
including the Administrator under Section 16 of act of 2013,
found that no affected person required rehabilitation, and
therefore no scheme was necessary. A declaration under Section
19 of Act of 2013 was issued and published on 27.11.2024.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (18 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
Marking, measurement, and compensation assessment were
completed as per law, and a committee was constituted for
distribution. No objection was filed against the declaration dated
12.11.2024 (Annex.7), including by the petitioners, indicating
finality of the process.
5.6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that the grievance of the petitioners regarding
conversion of uncommand land to command land or supply of
water is wholly misconceived, as no such relief is contemplated
within the scope of acquisition proceedings under the Act. The
only legal entitlement arising from acquisition is the
determination of land value, which has been duly assessed, and
the petitioners shall receive compensation strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Act.
5.7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that no irregularity or lapse occurred at any stage.
Public notices were issued, objections were addressed, surveys
were undertaken, and all actions were supported by statutory
compliance and documentary record. The presumption of legality
attaches to these proceedings, and the petitioners have
produced no material to rebut it. Contentions regarding lack of
hearing, faulty surveys, or entitlement to rehabilitation are
wholly unfounded.
5.8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that the award dated 25.07.2025 (Annex.8) was passed
in compliance with Sections 20-23 of Act of 2013 after due
notice, and relevant documents were made available. The
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (19 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
respondents have acted in good faith and strictly within the
statutory framework, and no violation of rights is made out.
5.9. In the view of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the respondent-State submits that the writ petition is
devoid of merit, suffers from absence of any cause of action, and
does not warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
5.10. Learned counsel for the respondent-state further
submits that the legality of the acquisition is reinforced by
several authoritative judicial pronouncements. Reliance is placed
on Dr. Abraham Pattani v. State of Maharashtra, 2023
(11) SCC 70, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
substantive compliance with statutory requirements is sufficient,
and that public interest must prevail over individual objections,
particularly in projects of wider societal importance. In
Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1)
SCC 134, the Supreme Court held that courts must balance
equities in acquisition matters and that monetary compensation
is ordinarily an adequate remedy to safeguard private interests.
Reference is also made to Ramjilal Veerji Patel v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, 2011 (10) SCC 643, which held that
suitable compensation enabling landowners to purchase
alternative land satisfies the statutory mandate, and that judicial
review in acquisition matters is limited. Furthermore, in
Nandkishore Gupta v. State of U.P., 2010 (10) SCC 282,
the Apex Court held that where the overwhelming majority of
affected persons accept the acquisition, objections raised by a
few cannot derail the project. Reliance is further placed on
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (20 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) SCC 285, wherein
it was held that belated challenges to completed acquisition
proceedings cannot be entertained. Furthermore, in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) SCC 129,
the Supreme Court reiterated that once an award has been
passed and possession taken, acquisition cannot be reopened on
technical or procedural grounds. Similarly, in State of
Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi, (1996) 6 SCC 445, it was held that
acquisition, once final, cannot be questioned after prolonged
delay. Further reliance is placed on Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 712, where the
Court held that after vesting of land and passing of the award,
the High Court should decline to interfere unless there is fraud
or absence of jurisdiction. On the strength of these consistent
principles, learned counsel submits that no ground is made out
for judicial interference, and the writ petition deserves dismissal.
6. After having bestowed anxious consideration to the
pleadings, rival submissions and documentary material placed
on record, as well as the judgments cited, this Court proceeds to
record its observations as hereinafter.
7. The Court has meticulously perused the contention of
the petitioners that the mandatory public hearing under Section
5 of the Act of 2013 for the SIA was not conducted, with no
notices issued to affected agriculturists, rendering the SIA
process deficient. On the perusal of the record and considering
submissions of the respondent counsels, this court finds that a
formal public notice was issued for hearing objections under
Section 5 of Act of 2013 against the SIA, specifying the date as
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (21 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
27.09.2022 (Annex.R/2). This ensured that affected persons
received timely information and a fair chance to participate,
aligning with principles of natural justice and statutory
requirements for transparency in land acquisition. The relevant
statutory provision, being Section 5 of the Act of 2013, is herein
reproduced for ready reference:
"5. Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment.-
Whenever a Social Impact Assessment is required to be
prepared under section 4, the appropriate Government shall
ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected area, after
giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for
the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected
families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact
Assessment Report."
7.1. From the material available on record, this Court
discerns that that the public hearing on 27.09.2022 is evidenced
by photographic images (Annex.R/1) which is itself part of SIA
report, depicting active participation by the local community and
officials. These visuals confirm the event's conduct in an open
and inclusive manner, with clear attendance of stakeholders
voicing concerns.
7.2. The newspaper publication of the public hearing
notice for the purpose of SIA hearing (Annex.R/3), verifies
widespread publicity to reach all potential objectors effectively.
This step through local media ensured accessibility and broad
awareness, meeting legal standards for disseminating
information as to SIA.
7.3. This Court further finds that the minutes of the public
hearing meeting held on 27.09.2022 meticulously documents
the names of the affected persons (Annex.R/4), the nature of
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (22 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
their objections, and the manner in which those objections were
addressed. This detailed record epitomizes the fair and
accountable disposal of grievances and reflects adherence to the
norms of natural justice, fostering confidence in the decision-
making process and compliance of Section 5 of Act of 2013.
7.4. Thus, In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
is of opinion that the SIA report (Annex.R/1)incorporates a
detailed account of the public hearing, including the objections
raised and how they were resolved which is in accordance with
Section 5 of Act of 2013. This incorporation ensures that the
input from the public has been conscientiously considered in
shaping the final assessment. Such integration substantiates the
thoroughness of the SIA and compliance with all procedural
requirements, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the
acquisition process.
8. This Court has perused the contentions of the
petitioners that the record does not disclose of the appraisal of
the SIA report by the Expert Group or its subsequent approval,
and that the preliminary Notification dated 14.11.2023
(Annex.1) under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 was not issued
within the prescribed twelve-month period from such appraisal,
rendering the SIA lapsed and mandating a fresh exercise..The
relevant statutory provision, being Section 7 of the Act of 2013,
is herein reproduced for ready reference:
"7. Appraisal of Social Impact Assessment report by an
Expert Group.-
(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the Social
Impact Assessment report is evaluated by an independent
multi-disciplinary Expert Group, as may be constituted by it.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (23 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
(2) The Expert Group constituted under sub-section (1) shall
include the following, namely:--
(a) two non-official social scientists;
(b) two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha,
Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may
be;
(c) two experts on rehabilitation; and
(d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the
project.
(3) The appropriate Government may nominate a person from
amongst the members of the Expert Group as the Chairperson of
the Group.
(4) If the Expert Group constituted under sub-section (1), is of the
opinion that,--
(a) the project does not serve any public purpose; or
(b) the social costs and adverse social impacts of the
project outweigh the potential benefits, it shall make a
recommendation within two months from the date of its
constitution to the effect that the project shall be
abandoned forthwith and no further steps to acquire the
land will be initiated in respect of the same:
Provided that the grounds for such recommendation shall be
recorded in writing by the Expert Group giving the details and
reasons for such decision:
Provided further that where the appropriate Government, in
spite of such recommendations, proceeds with the acquisition,
then, it shall ensure that its reasons for doing so are recorded in
writing.
(5) If the Expert Group constituted under sub-section (1), is of
the opinion that,--
(a) the project will serve any public purpose; and
(b) the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and
adverse social impacts, it shall make specific
recommendations within two months from the date of its
constitution whether the extent of land proposed to be
acquired is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for
the project and whether there are no other less displacing
options available:
Provided that the grounds for such recommendation shall be
recorded in writing by the Expert Group giving the details and reasons
for such decision.
(6) The recommendations of the Expert Group referred to in
sub-sections (4) and (5) shall be made available in the local
language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal
Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of the District
Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall
be published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (24 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
prescribed and uploaded on the website of the appropriate
Government."
8.1. On perusal of record and submission advanced, this
Court notices that an Independent Multi-Disciplinary Expert
Group was duly constituted by the District Collector in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 2013 (Annex.R/5). This
Expert Group examined and appraised the SIA report and
provided its evaluation and recommendations and that Expert
Group concluded the upon conducting an on-site inspection, the
Committee finds that the land proposed for acquisition is
required for the FCAB and is in the public interest as well as in
the national interest (Annex.R/6). The process of appraisal is
thus shown to be in full conformity with the statutory provision
under Section 7 of Act of 2013
8.2 Accordingly, Upon cumulative consideration of the
material, this court discerns that the Expert Group's appraisal
was conducted in a lawful and timely manner, and satisfies all
procedural requirements. The land acquisition is validated by
the Expert Group's findings and recommendations, which
confirm the project's public purpose and necessity.
8.3 This Court has considered the submission advanced
in respect of the preliminary notification, that the Preliminary
Notification dated 14.11.2023 (Annex.1) under Section 11(1)
of the Act of 2013 was not issued within the prescribed
twelve-month period from such appraisal, rendering the SIA
lapsed and mandating a fresh exercise. The relevant statutory
provision, being Section 11 of the Act of 2013, is herein
reproduced for ready reference:
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (25 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
"11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of
officers.-
(1) Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that
land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public
purpose, a notification (hereinafter referred to as preliminary
notification) to that effect along with details of the land to be
acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the
following manner, namely:--
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of
such area of which one shall be in the regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or
Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the
offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisional
Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Immediately after issuance of the notification under sub-
section (1), the concerned Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village
level, municipalities in case of municipal areas and the
Autonomous Councils in case of the areas referred to in the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution, shall be informed of the contents of
the notification issued under the said sub-section in all cases of
land acquisition at a meeting called especially for this purpose.
(3) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall also contain
a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved, reasons
necessitating the displacement of affected persons, summary of
the Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of the
Administrator appointed for the purposes of rehabilitation and
resettlement under section 43.
(4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction
of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any
encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such
notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter
are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the
owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to
be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this
subsection:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person
due to his willful violation of this provision shall not be made up by
the Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1), the Collector
shall, before the issue of a declaration under section 19,
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (26 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land records
as prescribed within a period of two months."
8.4. This Court is also of the considered view that the
preliminary Notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was
issued on 14.11.2023 and duly published in the Rajasthan
Gazette (Annex.R/8). This issuance is clearly within the statutory
period of twelve months from the date of the appraisal, thus
negating any claim of expiry or lapse of the SIA report.
8.5. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Notification
dated 14.11.2023 (Annex.1) was issued in conformity with
statutory timelines and legal requirements. The contention that
the SIA report has lapsed, warranting a fresh exercise, is
unsustainable in view of the record. The acquisition proceedings
maintain their legality and validity, having been conducted in
strict observance of the temporal and procedural safeguards
prescribed by law. This finding reinforces the sanctity of the
process and upholds the rule of law in the administration of land
acquisition matters.
9. This Court has categorically examined the contention
of the petitioners that the record furnished by the authorities
fails to establish that any preliminary survey under Section 12 of
Act of 2013 was conducted in the present proceedings. It is
alleged that there is no indication of any on-the-spot assessment
or engagement with the affected agriculturists, and therefore the
claim that the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme would be
governed by the survey report is without basis as no such report
exists. It is argued that the absence of the preliminary survey
invalidates the entire process, rendering it non est in law and
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (27 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
necessitating quashing of the proceedings in toto. The relevant
statutory provision, being Section 12 of the Act of 2013, is
herein reproduced for ready reference:
"12. Preliminary survey of land and power of officers to
carry out survey.- For the purposes of enabling the appropriate
Government to determine the extent of land to be acquired, it
shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially
authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants
and workmen,--
(a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such
locality;
(b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil;
(c) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land
is adapted for such purpose;
(d) to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken
and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made
thereon; and
(e) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks
and cutting trenches and where otherwise the survey cannot be
completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line
marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing
crop, fence or jungle:
Provided that no act under clauses (a) to (e) in respect of land
shall be conducted in the absence of the owner of the land or in the
absence of any person authorised in writing by the owner:
Provided further that the acts specified under the first proviso may
be undertaken in the absence of the owner, if the owner has been
afforded a reasonable opportunity to be present during the survey, by
giving a notice of at least sixty days prior to such survey:
Provided also that no person shall enter into any building or upon
any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless
with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving
such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to
do so."
9.1. On a careful scrutiny of the record and considering
the submission advanced, it emerges that the respondent
authorities have issued notices for a joint survey dated
20.08.2024 (Annex.R/10) to all concerned persons, enabling
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (28 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
inspection and active participation in the survey process. Those
landowners who were unwilling or absent were duly informed
that the proceedings would continue lawfully notwithstanding
their absence. This Court notes that a specific notice dated
20.08.2024 (Annex.R/10) indicating that a joint survey will be
conducted on 16.10.2024, expressly communicating the
requirement for affected persons to be present at the survey
location. This notice (Annex.R/10), along with the conduct of the
joint survey dated 16.10.2024 as documented, demonstrates
compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 12 of act
of 2013, which envisages a preliminary survey to facilitate an
on-the-spot assessment of the land and engagement with the
affected parties. Accordingly, the Court holds that the absence of
a survey report, as alleged, is unfounded. The preliminary
survey was lawfully conducted, and the process remains valid
and untainted by the objections raised. The proceedings cannot
be quashed on this ground.
10. This Court now proceeds to examine the contention of
the petitioners that the statutory opportunity afforded to the
agriculturists under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 was rendered
illusory, inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Officer failed to
objectively consider and decide the objections raised by the
affected agriculturists and instead rejected the same in a cursory
and mechanical manner, without due application of mind.The
relevant statutory provision, being Section 15 of the Act of 2013,
is herein reproduced for ready reference:
"15.Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any
land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11,
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (29 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
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."
10.1. From a holistic appraisal of the record, this Court
finds that the petitioners duly preferred specific objections under
Section 15 of Act of 2013 before the Land Acquisition Officer
(Annex.2). Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer appropriately
directed the Tehsildar and Executive Officer to address and
decide the objections falling within their respective domains
(Annex.3). The Tehsildar thereupon proceeded to decide all such
objections point-wise, insofar as they pertained to his domain,
and submitted a detailed compliance report to the Land
Acquisition Officer (Annex.4).Finally, the Land Acquisition Officer,
upon receipt of all requisite reports, passed a comprehensive
speaking order in his order sheet, wherein each and every
objection preferred was categorically dealt with and disposed off
(Annex.5).
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (30 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
10.2. This sequential and structured process--commencing
with the filing of objections, delegation to domain experts for
specialised input, point-wise adjudication by the Tehsildar, and
culminating in a final reasoned order by the Land Acquisition
Officer--exemplifies strict adherence to the mandate of Section
15 of Act of 2013, the principles of natural justice, and the audi
alteram partem rule. The objections were neither summarily
dismissed nor mechanically rejected, but subjected to a multi-
layered, proper evaluation, ensuring procedural fairness and
substantive justice. This Court, therefore, concludes that there is
no infirmity whatsoever in the handling of objections under
Section 15 of act of 2013. The process stands fully validated,
and the contention to the contrary is rejected as devoid of merit.
11. This Court has further examined the contention of the
petitioners that the authorities did not undertake the
proceedings required under Section 16 of the Act of 2013,
including the undertaking of any survey or census and
preparation of a draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R)
scheme in consultation with the affected persons. The relevant
statutory provision, being Section 16 of the Act of 2013, is
herein reproduced for ready reference:
"16. Preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme by the Administrator-
(1) Upon the publication of the preliminary Notification
under sub-section (1) of section 11 by the Collector, the
Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall
conduct a survey and undertake a census of the affected
families, in such manner and within such time as may be
prescribed, which shall include--
(a) particulars of lands and immovable properties being
acquired of each affected family;
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (31 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
(b) livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and
landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on
the lands being acquired;
(c) a list of public utilities and Government buildings
which are affected or likely to be affected, where
resettlement of affected families is involved;
(d) details of the amenities and infrastructural facilities
which are affected or likely to be affected, where
resettlement of affected families is involved; and
(e) details of any common property resources being
acquired.
(2) The Administrator shall, based on the survey and
census under sub-section(1), prepare a draft
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, as prescribed
which shall include particulars of the rehabilitation and
resettlement entitlements of each land owner and
landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the
lands being acquired and where resettlement of affected
families is involved--
(i) a list of Government buildings to be provided in
the Resettlement Area;
(ii) details of the public amenities and infrastructural
facilities which are to be provided in the
Resettlement Area.
(3) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme
referred to in sub-section (2) shall include time limit for
implementing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme.
(4) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme
referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made known locally
by wide publicity in the affected area and discussed in the
concerned Gram Sabhas or Municipalities.
(5) A public hearing shall be conducted in such manner
as may be prescribed, after giving adequate publicity
about the date, time and venue for the public hearing at
the affected area:
Provided that in case where an affected area involves
more than one Gram Panchayat or Municipality, public
hearings shall be conducted in every Gram Sabha and
Municipality where more than twenty-five per cent. of
land belonging to that Gram Sabha or Municipality is
being acquired:
Provided further that the consultation with the Gram
Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall be in accordance with
the provisions of the Provisions of the Panchayats
(Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of
1996).
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (32 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
(6) The Administrator shall, on completion of public
hearing submit the draft Scheme for Rehabilitation and
Resettlement along with a specific report on the claims and
objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector."
11.1. The record provides that the Divisional Commissioner,
Bikaner, was appointed as the Administrator for the purpose R&R
scheme, therefore, the administrator directed (Annex.R/11
dated 21.10.2024), the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadulshahar, to
conduct a detailed survey and census of families affected by
rehabilitation and resettlement under section 16 of the Act of
2013. In compliance, the Sub-Divisional Officer conducted a
joint survey dated 16.10.2024 (Annex.R/10) with the aid and
assistance of requisite authorities.
11.2. According to the such joint survey report received
from the Sub-Divisional Officer, the total number of cultivators
affected by the proposed land acquisition is 162. Out of these,
the entire land of 86 cultivators is to be acquired; however, not a
single cultivator's residential house or building is being acquired
(Annex.R/11). Finally, the Administrator submitted joint survey
report dated 16.10.2024 to the District Collector, Shri
Ganganagar, affirming that as per the joint survey dated
16.10.2024, there was no acquisition of any residential house,
the rights to livelihood of agriculturalists had not been affected,
and accordingly, Nil families were entitled to rehabilitation and
resettlement (Annex.R/12).
11.3. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court
finds that the authorities have scrupulously complied with the
statutory requirements under Section 16 of Act of 2013. The
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (33 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
detailed survey and census were undertaken as mandated, and
the findings logically rendered the preparation of an R&R
Scheme unnecessary. The procedure followed affirms adherence
to the legislative intent, safeguarding the rights of the affected
persons while ensuring lawful acquisition proceedings.
Therefore, the argument of non-compliance with Section 16 of
act of 2013 is without substance and is hereby rejected.
12. This Court has examined the plea of the petitioners
that a public hearing mandated under Section 16(5) of the Act of
2013 was not held by the Administrator, thereby vitiating the
land acquisition proceedings on grounds of illegality and
arbitrariness. On an objective assessment of the record and rival
submissions advanced, this Court finds that the conditions
triggering the holding of such a public hearing did not arise in
the instant case. The detailed joint survey dated 16.10.2024 and
subsequent reports conclusively established that Nil families
were entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement, effectively
rendering the provisions of Section 16(5).The statutory mandate
for a public hearing in the context of rehabilitation and
resettlement is expressly conditioned upon the authority's
satisfaction of the necessity to prepare a Rehabilitation and
Resettlement scheme. The primary purpose of such a hearing is
to facilitate the preparation of a draft scheme with due
consultation from the affected parties.
12.1. Therefore, given the unequivocal finding that the
families entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement are "Nil"
(Annex.R/11 and R/12), the absence of a public hearing and the
non-preparation of a draft scheme are entirely justified and
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (34 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
compliant with the legislative scheme and intent. Consequently,
the Court holds that there is no procedural or legal infirmity in
this regard, and dismisses the contention as devoid of any
substance.
13. This Court after thorough examination has considered
contention of the petitioners that the award dated 25.07.2025 is
vitiated on multiple grounds, notably the absence of any
preparatory award on 09.07.2025 as purported, reflected by the
minutes of the meeting on that day which only record
discussions but no award preparation, thus rendering the
subsequent 25.07.2025 award liable for being declared based on
false narration and non-existent proceedings and also the
contention that the award violates Sections 26 and 27 of the Act
of 2013 by ignoring sale deeds and market data, and applying
the statutory formula perfunctorily, rendering the award dated
25.07.2025 (Annex.8) arbitrary and illegal. The relevant
statutory provisions, Section 26 and 27 of the Act of 2013, is
herein reproduced for reference:
"26. Determination of market value of land by
Collector.-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing
and determining the market value of the land, namely:--
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale
deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the
area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area;
or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon
under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition
of lands for private companies or for public private
partnership projects, whichever is higher:
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (35 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
Provided that the date for determination of market
value shall be the date on which the notification has
been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1.--The average sale price referred to in
clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale
deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of
area in the near village or near vicinity area during
immediately preceding three years of the year in which such
acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.--For determining the average sale price
referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of
sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale
price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.--While determining the market value under
this section and the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as
compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this
Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken
into consideration.
Explanation 4.--While determining the market value under
this section and the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the
opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing
market value may be discounted for the purposes of
calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall
be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that--
(a) the land is situated in such area where the
transactions in land are restricted by or under any other
law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land
are not available for the immediately preceding three
years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority, the State Government concerned shall specify
the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said
land based on the price calculated in the manner specified
in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land
situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers
its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been
acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land,
such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent, of
the value so calculated under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (36 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case
compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired)
to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the
value of the land calculated under sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of
any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all
necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the
land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall
ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of
any land or property of an educational institution established
and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be
such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of their choice.
27. Determination of amount of compensation.-The
Collector having determined the market value of the land to
be acquired shall calculate the total amount of compensation
to be paid to the land owner (whose land has been acquired)
by including all assets attached to the land."
13.1. The records indicates that the Land Acquisition
Officer, as the Competent Authority under the Act, lawfully
declared Award No. 2025/602 (Annex.8) on 09.07.2025 after
conducting the requisite meeting for the purpose of hearing the
necessary objections. Furthermore, this court observes that the
ambit with regard to determination of compensation and the
methodology employed fall strictly within the statutory
jurisdiction and technical domain of the designated authorities.
Such valuation matters involve disputed questions of fact and,
as such, are appropriately subject to statutory remedies
provided under the Act, rather than being amenable to challenge
in writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
13.2. This Court is conscious of the existence of an
alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Act of
2013, which allows any person aggrieved by the award to prefer
a Reference before the Collector, providing a mechanism for
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (37 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
redressal within the statutory framework. The relevant statutory
provision, being Section 64 of the Act of 2013, is herein
reproduced for reference:
"64. Reference to Authority-
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may,
by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be
referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority,
as the case may be, whether his objection be to the
measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the
person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of
the compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days
from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the
appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such
reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply
to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the
Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty
days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to
the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be
made--
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before
the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six
weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice
from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from
the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first
expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application
after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one
year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing
it within the period specified in the first proviso."
13.3. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that
the alleged procedural lapses and valuation disagreements do
not provide a basis for interfering with the award or the
acquisition at this stage. The remedy lies exclusively within the
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (38 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
statutory mechanism, and the writ petition is not the proper
forum to probe into such factual and valuation controversy.
14. Having regard to the factual matrix as observed
above and the principles of law and judicial precedents
considered herein, this Court finds it appropriate to apply the
legal framework to the facts of the present case. The
observations on the procedural and substantive irregularities
must be evaluated in the light of the statutory provisions and
the settled legal position, so as to determine whether the
contentions raised merit any interference with the award or
acquisition proceedings.
15. This Court is guided by the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty &
Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 69, wherein it has been authoritatively
held that the power of judicial review in land acquisition matters
is extremely limited and interference is permissible only in the
rarest of rare cases where the acquisition is ex facie contrary to
law or is vitiated by mala fides. The Supreme Court has further
held that the courts are not equipped to examine the viability or
feasibility of a project or whether the particular alignment
subserve public interest. The relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for reference:
"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a
professionally managed statutory body having expertise in
the field of development and maintenance of national
highways. The projects involving construction of new
highways and widening and development of the existing
highways, which are vital for the development of
infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the
field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast
knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development
and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (39 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
relating to development and maintenance of national
highways after thorough study by experts in different fields.
Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the
relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic
and larger public interest. The courts are not at all equipped
to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular
project and whether the particular alignment would subserve
the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of
judicial review is very limited. The court can nullify the
acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the
particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the
mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in
hand, neither has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act
been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been
proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be
sustained."
Applying the aforesaid settled principle to the present case, this
Court finds that neither any violation of the mandate of the Act
of 2013 has been established nor any mala fide has been
pleaded or proved. Consequently, no ground for interference in
the acquisition proceedings is made out.
16. Though the present case is not one where statutory
violations are found, this Court also keeps in mind the caution
sounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Yadav
v. State of West Bengal (2017) 11 SCC 601, that the
mandatory procedure prescribed for acquisition cannot be
treated as an empty formality and must be strictly followed. In
the present factual matrix, however, the record conclusively
establishes that the Social Impact Assessment, public hearing
under Section 5 of Act, expert appraisal under Section 7,
objection proceedings under Section 15 of Act of 2013, joint
survey under Section 12 of Act of 2013,provisions of R&R
Scheme under Section 16 and declaration under Section 19 of
Act of 2013 have all been conducted strictly in accordance with
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (40 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
law. Therefore, the acquisition cannot be termed as void ab
initio.
17. This Court is further guided by the decision in
Ramniklal N. Bhutta(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in
land acquisition matters, the Court must balance public interest
against private interest and that monetary compensation is
ordinarily an adequate remedy. The Supreme Court has
cautioned that acquisition proceedings should not be lightly
interdicted. The relevant extract of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinafter for reference:
"10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to
make a few observations relevant to land acquisition
proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an
ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement
to make our economy competitive in the world market. We
are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the
maximum extent. We propose to compete with China
economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress
achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as
"Asian tigers", e.g, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It
is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure
necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully
lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power
and communications are in dire need of substantial
improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things
very often call for acquisition of land and that too without
any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these
cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition
proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in the
shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay
of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way
of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have
been the practices in the past, a time has come where the
courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while
exercising their power of granting stay/ injunction. The
power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised
only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on
the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land
acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (41 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the
same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other
similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature,
is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public
interest vis- à- vis the private interest while exercising the
power under Article 226 -- indeed any of their discretionary
powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in
case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on
account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that
the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular
amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or
calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable.
There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and
redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is
not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a
matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it
is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust
that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the
courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition
proceedings."
17.1. In the present case, the land has been acquired for
establishment of a defence aviation base of vital strategic
importance, directly linked to national security and public
interest of the highest order. The balance of convenience, equity
and public interest overwhelmingly tilts in favour of allowing the
acquisition to proceed.
18. Having recorded the factual findings, this Court now
turns to consider the guidance provided by authoritative
judgments on the right to property under Article 300-A. In D.B.
Basnett (D) through LRs v. Collector, East District,
Gangtok, Sikkim, (2020) 4 SCC 572, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reaffirmed that although the right to property is no longer
a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article
300-A, and any deprivation must strictly follow the procedure
established by law. In the present case, the acquisition is backed
by due statutory Notifications, public notices, hearings, surveys,
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (42 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
and award. Hence, the protection under Article 300-A stands
fully satisfied.
19. Further, in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr.
v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Anr. (2024) SCC 10 533, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated seven procedural sub-rights
flowing from Article 300-A, namely: notice, hearing, reasoned
decision, public purpose, restitutive compensation, expeditious
process and finality. The record categorically appreciates that
each of these procedural sub-rights stands duly complied with in
the present acquisition proceedings.
20. In consonance with the principles laid down in D.B.
Basnett(supra) and Kolkata Municipal
Corporation(supra), the Court notes that even under Vidya
Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC
569, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that forcible
dispossession without due process violates Article 300-A and
also a human right. In the present case, however, there is no
forcible dispossession dehors the law; rather, acquisition has
been carried out strictly under authority of law with a duly
declared award and compensation mechanism, and therefore,
the said principle stands fully satisfied.
21. The Court now refers to the judgments relating to
land acquisition proceedings undertaken in connection with
projects of national importance. This Court takes note of the law
laid down in Heera Singh Pangtey (supra), wherein it has
been held that acquisition for national defence occupies the
highest pedestal and the personal rights of individuals must yield
to the larger national interest. Judicial review, in such cases, is
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (43 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
confined only to examining the existence of public purpose and
adherence to due process. In the present case, the
establishment of a FCAB near the Indo-Pak border is
unquestionably a project of paramount national security, and the
procedural safeguards have been fully complied with under the
relevant statutory provisions of Act of 2013.
22. This Court observes that land acquisition undertaken
for projects directly connected with national security constitutes
an overriding public purpose of the highest order, where the
interests of the State in ensuring defence preparedness and
territorial integrity must prevail over individual claims. Such
projects are integral to safeguarding the sovereignty of the
nation, and therefore judicial scrutiny is confined to verifying the
existence of a bona fide public purpose and compliance with the
statutory procedure. Where the acquisition demonstrably
advances national security objectives and is carried out in
accordance with law, it warrants due deference and does not call
for judicial interference.
23. So far as the grievance regarding livelihood and
rehabilitation is concerned, the law laid down in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr.,
(2011) 7 SCC 639 is squarely applicable, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that acquisition does not per se amount to
violation of the right to livelihood and that alternate
rehabilitation is not an absolute enforceable right. In the present
case, the joint survey dated 16.10.2024 categorically establishes
that no residential house or primary livelihood structure is being
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (44 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
acquired, therefore, the claim for mandatory rehabilitation is
legally untenable.
24. This Court notes the authoritative pronouncements
emphasizing the essential role of public hearings in the process
of land acquisition. In this regard of right of hearing under
Section 5 and 15 of Act of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. Shiv Raj & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 564 held
that the right of objection is not a mere formality and the
Collector must pass a reasoned order after due consideration.
From the material on record, it is manifest that the objections of
the petitioners were duly examined, reports were called from
concerned authorities and a detailed speaking order was passed.
Hence, the mandate of fair hearing stands duly fulfilled.
25. This Court further finds that the challenge to the
award dated 25.07.2025 essentially pertains to the adequacy
and methodology of compensation. Such disputes involve
questions of fact and technical valuation which fall squarely
within the jurisdiction of the statutory forum under Section 64 of
the Act of 2013. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to
substitute the statutory mechanism.
26. In view of the discussion made and the authoritative
pronouncements referred to hereinabove, this Court concludes
that the entire acquisition process has been conducted in strict
conformity with the mandate of law. No infraction of Article 300-
A of the Constitution is made out. All the mandatory statutory
requirements relating to the right of hearing, survey, expert
assessment, and rehabilitation and resettlement have been
scrupulously adhered to. The acquisition, being integrally
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48206] (45 of 45) [CW-17703/2025]
connected with an overriding national security objective,
subserves a compelling public and strategic interest of the
highest order. The present writ petition, therefore, is nothing but
a misconceived attempt to derail a lawfully concluded acquisition
proceeding on hyper-technical grounds, concerning a project of
vital national importance. Consequently, the writ petition stands
dismissed. All pending applications, including any application for
stay, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
-/surabhii/-
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:12:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
