In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
Civil Writ Petition No.8267/2010
Ajay Singh Versus District Collector, Jaipur & Ors
Date of Order ::: 12/07/2010
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Gopal K. Garg, for petitioner
Instant petition has been filed assailing notification dt.12/04/2010 (Ann.1) issued in exercise of powers U/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land admeasuring 12960 sq. mtr (18×270) out of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.6/1 in village Chittora Tehsil Phagi (Jaipur).
It is not in dispute that after publication of notification U/s 4(1) of the LA Act, objections were filed by petitioner U/s 5A and no action has further been taken by the authority to make any declaration as referred in S.6 or 17 of the Act, so far.
Counsel submits that action of the authority in issuing notification U/s 4(1) of the LA Act is wholly arbitrary, malafide and without application of mind. Counsel has further tried to persuade this Court on the proposed site plan of the land being intended to be acquired under notification impugned. Taking assistance whereof, Counsel submits that the road which the State Government wants to construction after acquiring the land through process being initiated under notification impugned in no manner is going to serve any purpose and this action of the appropriate Government is only for an ulterior reasons despite the fact that SDO Phagi has given negative report as is evident from letter dt.24/12/2009 (Ann.8).
In the opinion of this Court, submission made by Counsel cannot be examined by this Court at this stage for the reason that U/s 4(1) preliminary notification has been published by appropriate Government in official gazette, about the land which the authority intends to acquire and after publication of notification, the appropriate Government has to examine for taking its decision as to whether the land is needed for the purpose after the process U/s 5A of the LA Act being complied with or invoking special powers in cases of urgency provided under the LA Act, if so needed. Obviously objections made by petitioner has not yet been examined by appropriate government at the stage of issuing preliminary notification U/s 4(1) of LA Act, and if any decision thereon is taken by State Government U/s 6 or 17 of LA Act, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all such objections available at appropriate stage. In the opinion of this Court, at this stage instant petition is premature warranting no interference.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 8267CW2010July12Ds.do