IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., SHUBHA MEHTA, J.
Lok Sampati Sanrakshan Samiti, Through Its Secretary Shri P.N. Maindola & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary to the Government, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. PIL Petition No. 14635 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2024
Public Interest Litigation - Land Use - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - The court analyzed the land acquisition for industrial purposes, the subsequent development plans, and the legal framework surrounding land use classifications, ultimately ruling against the petitioners' request for a biodiversity park.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to convert acquired industrial land into a biodiversity park, claiming it had developed rich flora and fauna. The land was originally acquired for industrial purposes, but the petitioners argued for its reclassification based on environmental concerns.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land remained designated for industrial use as per the Master Plan and previous Supreme Court rulings. The petitioners were deemed to have suppressed material facts and misrepresented the status of the land.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could convert industrial land into a biodiversity park despite prior legal rulings and the Master Plan designating it for industrial use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the land's designation for industrial use was upheld by the Supreme Court, and the petitioners' claims lacked credibility due to suppression of facts and misrepresentation.
Result: The petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-
ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent-RIICO be directed to transfer the land situated in Khasra Nos Khara Nos.1, 10,12, 18, 16, 2, 20 to 31, 3, 31/104, 32 to 44, 4, 44/103, 45, 45/102, 46, 46/105, 47 to 49, 49/106, 5, 50, 59, 6, 69, 7, 78 to 87, 8 and 9 measuring 26.2100 Hectres, Village: Dhol Ka Badh, Tehsil: Sanganer, Jaipur Khasra Nos. 352, 353, 357, 356, 355, 370, 371, 369, 368, 373, 351, 350, 349, 346, 344, 343, 365, 360, 366 measuring 10.69 Hectres, Village: Jhalana Chod, Tehsil: Sanganer, Jaipur to respondent-JDA only for the purpose of development of Bio-diversity Park in pursuance to minutes of meeting dated 9.12.1983 under the chairmanship of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister;
iii. Any other appropriate order or directions which are deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner and in the interest of justice.
iv. Cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.”
2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be a society constituted with an aim and object to preserve the public properties and other ancillary issues related to public interest. Petitioner No.2 claims to be a public spirited person engaged in matters of public interest.
3. Through this petition, the petitioners have sought issuance of writ of mandamus/directions/orders for development of biodiversity park over 26.21 hectares of land situated in village Dhol-ka-Badh and 10.69 hectares of land situated in village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. The averments made by the petitioners are that the aforesaid lands were acquired in the year 1979-1982, involving 591 bighas and 9 biswas for the purposes of industrial development, followed by handing over of possession to Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (for short ‘RIICO’) on 18.10.1982 and 17.11.1983, further followed by an award passed on 14.05.1984 in favour of those whose lands were acquired. However, the lands, for one reason or the other, were not developed as industrial area, though 105 acres of aforesaid land was earmarked for establishing gem industrial estate followed by allotment to Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited. It was later on cancelled, which led to various disputes and legal battle, which were finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.02.2013, settling in favour of RIICO.
3.1 It is contended that in the meantime, the lands remained unused and there developed a forest area containing large number of trees and bushes, resulting in natural growth of rich flora and fauna. A large number of indigenous species have made the land their homes and also the destination of migrant birds of about 75 species. There are 2421 trees of 30 different varieties with 54 different varieties of shrubs and herbs/medicinal properties. Out of 591 bighas of land, 166 bighas has rich flora and fauna, whereas 24 bighas of land has virtually been converted into residential colonies, which have already been developed and regularized by various local authorities/development authorities. In this manner, over the years, an area of 166 bighas has developed into a very rich and diverse biological preserve.
4. It is furthe
The court reaffirmed that land acquired for industrial purposes cannot be repurposed for residential or biodiversity uses without legal basis, emphasizing adherence to the Master Plan and prior judic....
Notice under Section 35(3) IFA for MPFA vesting must be by authorised officer, served on true owner pre- or proximately to appointed day; invalid notice fails strict compliance, preventing land class....
Re-densification policy upheld with compensatory afforestation enhancing green cover, balancing development and environmental safeguards.
Re-densification policy upheld with enhanced green spaces and 10:1 tree plantation compensating park use and tree removal.
A statutory master plan possesses binding force, and land earmarked for development thereunder cannot be reclassified as a 'deemed forest' based on subsequent natural vegetation growth. The relevant ....
The court establishes that historical usage and socio-economic context of land use must influence zoning classifications, balancing environmental protection with community needs under the Forest (Con....
No reduction in designated green corridor area occurred; Plot A-1 carved from institutional surplus, not green belt; UPPCB to enforce pollution consents.
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.