The court affirmed that compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is essential for valid land acquisition, particularly regarding notifications and public interest.

ORDER

1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the entire land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question including the notification dated 5.6.2012 (Annex. 1), declaration dated 4.6.2013 (Annex.4) and award dated 4.8.2015 (Annex. 10) be declared illegal and be quashed with all consequential directions;

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notification dated 5.6.2012 have lapsed;

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking possession of the land in question from the petitioners;

(iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, if during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents proceed to take physical possession of the land in question, then the same may kindly be directed to be restored back to the petitioners;

(v) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon?ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners;

(vi) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

2. In nutshell, the facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that a notification dated 05.06.2012 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894r) was issued by the State Government, which was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary on 19.06.2012, followed by its publication in the two daily newspapers, namely Dainik Pratinidhi and Jalte Deep on 29.06.2012.

3. Vide the aforementioned notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, a land measuring 236.05 hectares situated in Village Kankani, Tehshil Luni, District Jodhpur and the land measuring 111.13 hectares situated in Village Kharabera Purohitaan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur - totalling 347.18 hectares - were sought to be acquired, for the purpose of development of an industrial area by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO).

4. On 04.04.2013, a report under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni) Jodhpur, in regard to the acquisition proceedings in question, mentioning therein that no objections were received from the concerned khatedars. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.06.2013, which was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary on 10.06.2013, whereafter the concerned khatedars filed the representations on 08.07.2013 and 30.08.2013. Thereafter, various proceedings and correspondence took place. However, on 04.08.2015, the final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni), Headquarter Jodhpur.

5. Thus, the present petitioners being amongst the owners of the lands in question and aggrieved by the aforementioned proceedings, notification, declaration and the final award, have preferred the present petitions.

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Luni) Headquarter Jodhpur, vide its communication dated 13.03.2015, had himself, while observing that the proposed land sought to be acquired is adjacent to Luni River, called for the departmental comments from the Advisor (Infra), RIICO Ltd, Jaipur, as to the suitability of the land in question for the purpose of acquisition.

7. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the aforementioned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was said to be pasted at conspicuous places, but the same has been done as an empty formality, and the attesting witnesses in regard thereto are also doubtful.

8. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that with the creation of in