1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of the notification dated 12.08.2010 issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Land Acquisition Act’) for acquisition of 3151 Bighas, 4 Biswas and 12 Biswansi of land of villages Salawas, Boranada and Heerkhera of Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur for extension of industrial area of Boranada. The petitioners have also challenged the publication of notice under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the said land and the final award passed. All the petitioners are affected persons, whose land comes under the impugned notification.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the impugned notification was issued on 12.08.2010. Sub- Divisional Officer, Luni was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘LAO’). Final notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26.09.2011 and the award is passed by the LAO on 24.09.2013.

3. It is also not in dispute that for the same land notified in the impugned notification, earlier also a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 2005, however, the said acquisition proceedings lapsed as the same could not be finalized by issuing the award within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have challenged the impugned notification and the acquisition proceedings mainly on the following grounds:

(A) Mandatory procedure laid down under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has not been followed by the LAO.

(B) Final award issued by the LAO on 24.09.2013 is incomplete.

(C) The land sought to be acquired vide impugned notification falls within periphery control belt as per the master plan of Jodhpur City for the year 2002 to 2023 and, therefore, without making essential changes in the master plan, industrial area cannot be set up. The land sought to be acquired is adjoining to Jodhpur, situated in South-West side and as per the master plan of Jodhpur City, the land sought to be acquired cannot be used for industrial purpose.

(D) The set up of industrial area on the land sought to be acquired is in violation of norms fixed by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India with suggestion that industrial area should be located 50 kms. away from the urban limits.

The challenge of the petitioners to the impugned notification and the subsequent acquisition proceedings are countered by the respondent-State and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RIICO’) by raising the following contentions:

(I) All the writ petitions have been filed after passing of the final award. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(II) The LAO has decided the objections raised by some of the Khatedars under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act after following due procedure and after application of mind.

(III) Award dated 24.09.2013 is complete in all respects and cannot be said to be incomplete.

(IV) Even if the land falls within periphery control belt as per the master plan of Jodhpur City, the same can be used for industrial purpose.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr M.S.Singhvi assisted by Mr Sunil Beniwal has argued that the acquisition proceedings initiated vide impugned notification are vitiated as the LAO has not followed the procedure laid down under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is argued that the provisions of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the said provisions vitiates the acquisition proceedings. It is further argued that the LAO is duty bound to objectively consider the objections raised by any objector and thereafter can make recommendations by detailing