Honble SHARMA, J.—In all these five writ petitions challenge is made to the notifications dated 1.7.2005 and 15.9.2005 respectively issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(1)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Acquisition Act) as well as notice under Section 9(1)(2) and subsequent proceedings under the said Act.

2. For convenience facts of Writ Petition No. 7957 of 2005 are taken into consideration. The petitioner in this writ petition averred that 1 rid bearing Khasra No. 1333 and 604 was purchased by him in the year 1.987 by a registered sale-deed. The Tehsildar vide order dated 1.9.1987 mutated the said land in favour of the petitioner and vide permission dated 24.4.1990 the petitioner constructed a residential house, well and boundary wall of 5 ft. around the whole land. The State of Rajasthan issued a notification dated 1.7.2005 under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act, acquiring the land of the khatedars in village Kukas for the purposes of Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (in short RIICO). The land of the petitioner proposed to be acquired was 0.52 hectares out of total area of 0,84 hectares. After the petitioners filed objections on 29.7.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short LAO) proceeded with the matter and fixed 24,8.2005, 30.8.2005, 9.9.2005 and 16.9.2005 for hearing but after the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) and (4) of the Acquisition Act issued by the State Government on 1.5.9.2005 the LAO declined to decide the objections filed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the notification did not denote any urgent need and it was issued without making compliance of Sections 5-A and 6 of the Acquisition Act.

3. The Respondents 1 and 2 filed joint reply to the writ petition whereas Respondent No. 3 submitted separate reply. The Respondent 1 and 2 admitted issuance and publication of notification dated 1.7.2005 under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act. Filing of objection by the petitioner and issuance of notification under Section 17(1)(4) and Section 6 on 15.7.2005 was also admitted and it was stated that the notification was published on 16.9.2005 in two daily news papers viz. Mahka Bharat and Dainik Navjyoti. It was denied that the purpose of the notification was not to provide hearing to the petitioners. According to respondents the industrial area earlier set up by RIICO in village Kukas had saturated and there was heavy demand of industrial plots in the said area being situated in proximity to the National Highway No. 8 leading to Delhi. Therefore, considering the urgency of the situation and after due application of mind the State Government decided to invoke the urgency clause provided in Section 17(4) of the Acquisition Act dispensing with the requirement of hearing under Section 5-A of the said Act.

4. The respondent no. 3 in the reply stated that the Jaipur Development Authority has already taken steps for change in the land use indicated in the Master Plan for the area in question and in this connection issued a notification under Section 25(3) of the JDA Act on 23.9.2005. An affidavit has been filed on the one hand the petitioner has been prosecuting the writ petition and on the other hand he has submitted his claims before the LAO in response to the notice under Section 9 of the Acquisition Act claiming Rs. 4,14,39,218/-. He has also voluntarily participated in the process of determination of compensation, but because of the interim order passed in the present matter, the LAO could not proceed to determine the compensation. In other matters, the estimated compensation to the extent of 80% in terms of Section 17(3-A) has been determined and deposited in the Civil Court. The land of Charagah which the petitioner is citing as an alternative land is not only not adjacent to the existing industrial area, but also far away from the National Highway and, therefore, would have no utility for the purpose of expansion of the existing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document