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 must be duly considered.

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 that the land in question of the petitioner is an agricultural land having old construction as well as trees and plants are existing on the same and if the land in question is left out, no prejudice will be caused. The petitioner also cited one Circular of the respondent-department dated 06/04/1998 whereby it was specified that the Government should consider that unnecessary land acquisition activities should not be initiated upon Abadi, irrigated, cultivated lands. The petitioner further submitted in objections to the notification under Section 5- A that at least 337 industrial plots are lying vacant in Sitapura Industrial Area. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the respondent-RIICO consider the objections and prepared their report and sent recommendations to the Government vide order dated 25/01/2006 dealing with the objections of the petitioner and specifically holding that the land in question is situated in mid of the project and therefore, it is not suggested to leave the land qua the acquisition proceedings as the same will prejudice the planned development. It was pointed out in the report that the plantation in question is new but the boundary wall is old and it was suggested that appropriate decision may be taken at the end of the Government.

3. After consideration of report of the Committee, the acquisition proceedings were carried out and out of 199.75 hectares of land, vide declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 19/05/2006, only 197.18 hectares of land excluding 2.57 hectares of land was declared to be acquired. The petitioner submitted that 2.57 hectares of land, as above, was left out on the similar grounds and therefore, the discrimination has been made with the petitioner by the Committee. On the ground of being discriminated and against the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, the present writ petition was filed on 03/06/2006.

4. In this writ petition, this Court granted interim protection by way of staying dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question vide order dated 16/06/2006. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent-RIICO and on 13/05/2008, the writ petition was admitted and interim protection was made absolute. On 05/06/2008, an award was passed by the LAO.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, hostile discrimination with the petitioner became more grave when on 26/10/2009, when irrespective of the award having been passed by the LAO, on representation of MLA of the region, 3.38 hectares of land was de-acquired without any ground.

On 16/12/2009, the Infrastructure Development Committee passed a resolution for de-acquisition of 3.38 hectares of land out of the instant acquisition proceedings. Alongwith the said resolution, an inspection report was e