Gautam Estates Pvt. Ltd. : Nandan Green Houses Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(Raj) 2518

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.
Gautam Estates Pvt. Ltd. and others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and others - Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6898 Of 2006.
Decided On : 26-09-2008

For the Petitioner:Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Sr Advocate With Anant Bhandari And Anil Mehta, Advocates.
For the State and JDA: Bharat Vyas, Addl. AG.
For the Respondent:Virendra Odha, Paras Kuhad With Susan Timothy, Advocates.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – S. 4, 5A, 6 and 48 – The issues related to the challenging of the acquisition. The petitioner pleaded that the land was residential in nature and hence cannot be acquired for the project. The land was fully developed as residential before the first notice was issued by the respondents. The subsequent notice was issued by the respondent under the section5A. The action was challenged by the petitioner. It was held that if the issues were not considered by the state government under – S. 5A then it will be considered under – S. 48. The directions were issued to the state government to constitute a three member committee to look into the matter. The petition was dismissed with further directions issued.

JUDGMENT

1. 1. The acquisition proceedings have been challenged by both the petitioners on common facts and law relation to the notifications issued under section 4 and 6 respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ' Act of 1894') for establishment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as well as violation of Section 5A of Act of 1894 before issuance of the notifications under section 6 of the Act of 1894. One notifications under section 4 of the Act of 1894 were issued on 20.12.2005 and two notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 were issued on 29.4.2006 and 30.10.2006. Further common facts of the suitability of the acquisition of Abadi land were involved in both the cases. Therefore, both the cases have been heard together and are being decided together.

2. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention that in Gautam Estates, its land falls within the actual requirement of SEZ whereas the land/fully developed farm houses of Nandan Greens is surplus to the actual requirement of SEZ which is sought to be acquired for grant of the same for allotment to expropriated owners (Khatedars) but the respondents have submitted that the said land is not surplus land as the same is required for allotment to the expropriated owner which is also a public purpose.

3. The parties have urged legal issues in regard to Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and the additional facts regarding the nature of the land and building constructed thereon and their requirement, therefore, facts of the writ petition, reply along with additional affidavit are being referred and dealt with hereunder separately.

4. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are owners of Abadi and agricultural details whereof has been mentioned in para 3 which is as follows:xzke usoVk rglhy lkaxkusj dh Hkwfe dk fooj.k

dz0la0

[kljk uEcjku

dqy jdck

laifjorZu vkns'k fnukad

90 ch gsrq vkosfnr {ks=Qy gS0es0

Hkw&Lokeh dk uke

186] 187] 183@2568] 18@2502] 189@2601] 189] 190] 191] 248] 247] 252] 255

7-76 lEiw.kZ

04@11@92

xkSre ,VsVl izkbZosV fyfeVsM

1113@2602] 1023] 1024] 1027] 1028] 1118] 1113@2605] 1088] 1089] 1030] 1031] 1113@2606

6-77 lEiw.kZ

14-7-93 24-8-93

eh.kk dkWyksuh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fyfeVsM t;iqj

1121

0-11 lEiw.kZ

24-8-93

eh.kk dkWyksuh x`0 fu0l0l0fy0 fpjath yky [kSrku pUnuk] ruq [ksrku

1101] 1104] 1099] 1103@2608] 275] 276] 277

5-12 lEiw.kZ

5-12

Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

1102] 1079] 1084] 1091] 1093] 1094

5-28 1@3

1-7600

Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

100] 101] 102] 103] 104] 105] 206] 207] 208] 215] 218] 219] 220] 1068] 1069] 1074

4-39 1@4

1-0975

Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

209] 210] 211] 212] 213] 216] 217] 1064] 1065] 1066] 1067

3-10 1@2

1-550

Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

208] 215] 1068] 1069] 1074

1-04 1@4

0-260

xkSjo tSu

115] 116] 117] 118] 19] 120] 123] 124] 125] 126] 127] 128] 129] 135] 136] 137] 138] 139] 140] 141] 142] 143] 144

8-45 1@3

2-8167

xkSre ,LVsVl izkbZosV

861] 862] 863] 864] 865] 866] 867] 872] 873] 874] 875] 876] 877] 878] 879] 880] 881] 882] 883] 884] 885] 886] 887] 888] 889] 890] 891] 892] 893] 894] 895] 896] 897] 898] 899] 900] 901] 902] 1020] 1021] 1022] 1025] 1026] 1032] 1033] 1116] 1117] 1122] 1123] 1124] 1125] 1126] 1127] 1128] 1129] 1130] 1131] 1132] 1133] 1134] 1136] 1137] 1138] 1139] 1140] 1141] 1142] 1143] 1220] 1221] 1222] 1223

24-62 2@5

9-8480

xkSre ,LVsVl izkbZosV fyfeVsM Qrg pUn d`f"k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

1078] 1095] 1096] 1097] 1098] 1092@2676

3-04 lEiw.kZ

3-0400

xkSjo tSu iq= Jh lqjs'k tSu

99] 106] 107] 108] 196

2-53 lEiw.kZ

2-5300

Jherh izse tSu iRuh Jh lqjs'k tSu

5. The petitioners started development over the