SAMEER JAIN
Vimal Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Pr. Secretary To The Government, Industries Department Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquisition of the agricultural land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.106 measuring 1.10 hectare at Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for seeking directions from this Court for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 27/05/2005 issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1894 as well as declaration dated 19/05/2006 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.
2. Facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased the above referred land in revenue village Vimalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur measuring 4 Bigha 2 Biswa (1.10 hectare) on 17/02/2003 by way of registered sale deed. On 27/05/2005, the respondent-State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of the said land for the purpose of expansion of Sitapura Industrial Area to be developed by respondent no.2-RIICO. The total land to be acquired was 199.75 acres. On 16/06/2005, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 stating t
Daulat Singh Surana vs. First Land Acquisition Collector: (2007) 1 SCC 641
Ganga Bishnu Swaika & Anr. vs. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & Ors.: AIR 1968 SC 615
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors.:(2005) 7 SCC 627
Jage Ram vs. State of Haryana: (1971)1 SCC 671
Radhey Shyam (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2011) 5 SCC 553
Ramlal Motiramji Tayade vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 500
Ratilal Shakarabhai vs. State of Gujarat: (1970) 2 SCC 264
Somawanti vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1963 SC 151
The main legal point established is that the acquisition for public purposes and industrial expansion is justified under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the objections of the affected parties mus....
An argument to contrary blurs boundary lines of schemes of acquisition envisaged under these statutes and thus, runs counter to scope of section 28 of 1966 Act.
The court affirmed that compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is essential for valid land acquisition, particularly regarding notifications and public interest.
Objections confined to compensation do not trigger Section 5A protections, which are exclusive to acquisition legality; statutory remedies for compensation must be pursued separately.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.