The court affirmed that the SDOs had the authority to decide objections in land acquisition under the Act, and the process followed was in compliance with statutory requirements.

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 impugned Notification dated 29.11.2019 (Annex. 1) issued by the District Collector and order dated 12.03.2020 (Annex. 7) passed by the SDO, Pipad Shehar, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

II/- Pending the petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioners prejudicial to their interest, the same may kindly be taken on record and may be quashed and set-aside.

III/- 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.

IV/- Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

2. The sheet anchor of the present petitioners' case is initiation of the acquisition proceeding, in respect of certain lands situated, amongst others, in Pipar City, District Jodhpur, for the purpose of development of Bhavi-Pipar-Khivsar State Highway N0.86C. Such an exercise for acquisition of the land began with the notification dated 29.11.2019 issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013"). In these petitions, the aforesaid land acquisition process has been challenged.

3. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet R. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the mandate of Section 4 of the Act of 2013 required the social impact assessment study to be carried out, but the same was not done, in the true letter and spirit of such mandate.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that public hearing, in compliance of Section 5 of the Act of 2013, was also required to be provided before publishing the report in question prepared by the District Collector, in respect of the objections received in connection with the acquisition process, followed by the other processes.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 was published in the two daily newspapers, namely, Dainik Tarun Rajasthan and Badhte Kadam, which are not having wide circulation in the concerned area/locality.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the principal ground of challenge is that as per section 15(3) of the Act of 2013, the final decision regarding objections under Section 15(2) could have been taken only by the appropriate Government, which is the State Government, whereas in the present case, the same has been done by the Land Acquisition Officer, who does not carry the requisite sanctity for the purpose, and since the mandatory provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2013 have been violated, therefore, the land acquisition process in question is bad in the eye of law.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the objections received under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 were decided by the Sub Divisional Officer -cum- Land Acquisition Officer on 12.03.2020, which is contrary to the spirit of the legislation.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that under the Act of 2013, only the State Government is capable and authorized to decide the objections, and thus, there was a complete failure on the part of the respondents in conducting the land acquisition process in question.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the compliance of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 2013 was also not made, in its strict sense.

10. Since Section 15 of the Act of 2013 is the core point raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the same is reproduced as hereunder:

"15. Hearing of objec