1980 Supreme(Raj) 121
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
G.M. Lodha, J.
Motiyan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 472 of )977
Decided On : September 24, 1980
Panna Chand Jain Prem Ashopa & L.N. Jain, for the Petitioners in all Writs; M.I. Khan Govt. Advocate, for Respondents
Headnote:(a) Precedental Law—Decision of Larger Bench of Rajasthan High Court— Contrary decision of Supreme Court on same question—Same question before Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court—Single Judge not bound to follow law laid down by Larger bench in view of judgment of Supreme Court (Para 62)(b) Land Acquisition Act (Rajasthan) Sec. 17(4)—Question regarding urgency under sec. 17(4) not immune from judicial review—In view of decision of Supreme Court in Narayan vs. state of Maharashtra— AIR 1977 SC 183—Court has ample jurisdiction to make limited probe as per limits set out by Supreme Court—Land acquisition proceedings dispensing with application of sec. 5A quashed. (Para 71)
Khasra No. including measurement.
Name of Khatedar tenant/petitioner
1. 494/133, 230 392/238 measuring 12 Bigha. 23 Bighal6 Biswa &15 Biswas respectively; Laxmicband S/o Madholal Meena R/o Vil. Deh, Teh. Ladpura (Kota)
2. 156,418/156 421/156 & 157 measuring 35 Bigha 5 Biswa 1 Bigha 9 Biswa, 15 Biswa and 1 Bighas 11 Biswa respectively; Ramnath S/o Shri Chhoga Lodha R/o Vil. Deh. Teh. Ladpura (Kota)
3. 326/136, 158. measuring 17 Bighas & 18 Biswas. 29 Bighas & 2 Biswas respectively: Bajrang S/o Chaturbhuj Ramlal S/o Chaturbhuj
4. 147 measuring 26 Bighas 3 Biswas Chitarlal S/o Narain
5. 153 measuring 5 Bighas 18 Biswas Ram Kishan, Rambai, Ram Nathi, Sooraj Mal & Laxmi Narain;
6. 148 Area 12 Biswas
495/133 13 Bighas 15 Biswas
496/257 25 Bights 16 Biswas
Total 40 Bighas 6 Biswas.
7. 325/136 measuring 47 Bigha 1 Biswa Motiyan Widow of Bheru Chitter S/o Lt. Bheru.
2. Since a common question of law is involved and the facts are not different, all these writ petitions are decided together by one common judgment as prayed by both the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioners claim that they are in lawful and peaceful possession of the said land and are cultivating this land in question for the last more than 25 years. Out of this land some part of land are to be acquired by the respondents for allotment to M/s Rajasthan State Industrial & Mineral Development Corporation, Jaipur.
4. Earlier, M/s. Industrial Oxygen Co. Pvt. Ltd. have proposed to install a paper Mill at Kota and selected an area of 80 acres of land at Bhadana Village. This land was to be allotted to R.I.M.D.C. and the said Corporation was to hand over it to M/s. Industrial Oxygen Co Pvt. Ltd.
5. A notification dated 30-7-76 was issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, l953 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) First it was mentioned that the land is needed for allotment to M/s Industrial Oxygen Pvt. Ltd , Company but later on. by a corrigendum the mistakes were corrected by mentioning that it is needed for R.I.M.D.C. Again, another notification was issued on 23rd August, 1976, declaring that this land is needed for public purpose for allotment to R.I.M.D.C. and further it was mentioned that the provisions of sub section 5(A) shall not apply.
6. In pursuance of this, the Land Acquisition Officer directed the Tehsil-dar, Ladpura, Kota to take possession of the land. The Tehsildar in term issued an Order dated 27th September, 1977 that they would like to take possession of this land, and therefore, appropriate action may be taken for the same.
7. Petitioners then represented against the above order dated 27.th September, 1977. by which various persons were asked to vacate the land. A notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act was issued on 21st December, 1976 and no personal notice was issued. Petitioners case is that in view of their representations, the District Magistrate, Kota directed Land Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated 10th March, 19?7 to refrain from taking possession of this land.
8. Petitioners claim that the land was neither needed nor likely to be needed for public purpose and preliminary proceedings contemplated by S. 4 have not been completed. In fact, no inquiry was made whether the land is suitable or not, and no report as required by section 4 was submitted to the Collector.
9. The petitioners, in all these cases, raised manifold objections to the acquisition proceedings. It has been argued that the land is being acquired for a company or a corporation and would not come within the definition of public purpose, that no agreement has been published as required by the provisions of the Act, that there is no urgency warranting dispensing with the requirement of the inquiry under section 17. under