IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6709/2002 (Suo Motu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 29th October, 2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.P.C.Bhandari ] Mr.P.C.Sharma ] Mr.Vimal Choudhary ] Mr.R.D.Rastogi ] Mr.Mahesh Chand Gupta ] Mr.Sunit Awasthi ] Mr.Ashish Gurjar on behalf of Mr.R.K.Mathur ], for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG - for the State. Mr.A.K.Gupta ], Mr.K.K.Mehrishi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi, for the applicant. Mr.Rakesh Kumar ] Mr.Rajendra Raghav ] Mr.K.K.Sharma ], for the respondents.
By the Court (Per Hon’ble Bhandari,J.):
This Court took suo motu cognizance on de-acquisition of the land of Prithviraj Nagar Scheme at Jaipur. The aforesaid cognizance was taken in the light of the fact that earlier the State Government took a decision to acquire vast chunk of land for planned development of the scheme named as Prithviraj Nagar Yojna. The acquisition of land was challenged before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court held acquisition to be invalid. In appeal before the Division Bench, the acquisition was held to be valid. The matter thereafter travelled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court where judgement of the Division Bench was affirmed. After aforesaid, a decision to de-acquire the land was taken by the State Government possibly to benefit the land grabbers and others. This was to give premium to law violators. It was otherwise taken to be in connivance with officers of the State Government.
The larger question of public interest was formulated as to whether it is a bona fide decision of the State Government to de-acquire the land or to give benefits to the land grabbers. It was found that possession of large chunk of land had already taken, thus in the light of judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay & Ors. Vs. Godrej and Boyce reported in (1988) 1 SCC 50, provisions of Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act was not available. The same view was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in many other cases. This Court thereafter passed restrained order on constructions on 09.04.2003 followed by another restrained order. On 07.08.2008, a clarificatory order was passed holding that the restrained order is against building activities and does not restrain the Jaipur Development Authority (for short the J.D.A.) to take necessary steps to develop the area. Accordingly, vide order dated 09.02.2009, the J.D.A. was directed to come out with plan for development of area. Subsequently, further orders were passed calling upon the policy of the Government in regard to Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. This Court took serious view on constructions during the pendency of writ petition and restrained order therein.
Learned counsel for the State informed the Court that onwards electricity and water connections would not be released to those who are raising construction in violation of the interim order of this Court. The order to this effect has been issued.
The State Government has now come-up with the policy decision to de-acquire the land and with the further proposal as a consequence thereof. The decision of de-acquisition was questioned by us in reference to reply wherein it was stated that major portion of the land was possessed by the State on 24.11.1993. The compensation was given at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha. The compensation amounting to Rs.6,57,32,000/- was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer. In the light of aforesaid and in reference to Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, apart from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, a decision to de-acquire cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for all the parties were given time to argue the issue by deferring the matter for 27.10.2010.
Learned counsel Mr.Vimal Choudhary and Mr. R.D.Rastogi submitted that a decision to de-acquire the land in question is not available to the Government once possession of the land was taken. As a follow up action of de-acquisition, the Government wants to regularise illegal possession whereas after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, any transaction for sale or transfer of the property is void. If the State is permitted to de-acquire the land, it will benefit only land grabbers. Thus, such policy decision of the Government may not be accepted. Reference of various judgements on the aforesaid issue has been given. While arguing the matter, learned counsel Shri Vimal Choudhary brought to the notice of this Court a Notification issued on 20.02.2008 withdrawing the earlier Notification for de-acquisition of land dated 23.09.2002. It was urged that the writ petition has become infructuous in the light of the aforesaid Notification dated 20.02.2008. The issue in reference of suo motu was at the stage when Notification dated 23.09.2002 was passed to de-acquire the land. In the light of aforesaid, it was prayed that matter may be rendered infructuous with an observation that land stands acquired.
Learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the J.D.A. supported the prayer made by the learned counsel assisting the Court and prayed that in the light of withdrawal of Notification for de-acquisition of land dated 23.09.2002, the writ petition may be rendered infructuous.
We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for parties.
It is, no doubt, true that suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court when Notification for de-acquisition was issued on 23.09.2002. This Court took suo motu cognizance against Notification of de-acquisition after considering the fact that a challenge to acquisition remains un-successful up to the Apex Court then how the Government can de-acquire the land moreso when possession of vast chunk of land had already been taken.
During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General tried to justify proposal to de-acquire on the strength that land was not possessed by them. The aforesaid argument is not tenable in the light of the reply submitted by them. The issue regarding mode of possession to complete the exercise as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, was an issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that if there exists big chunk of land, preparation of Panchnama showing possession or even symbolic of paper possession is sufficient.
We could have elaborately discussed the aforesaid issue, however, in the light of the prayer made by learned counsel assisting the Court that writ petition has become infructuous, in the light of withdrawal of de-acquisition Notification dated 23.09.2002, the matter need not to be elaborated. This is moreso when learned Additional Advocate General has not pressed to accept their proposal to de-acquire the land. It was rather agreed that land stands acquired in the light of the Notification dated 20.02.2008 this matter may be rendered infructuous.
At this stage, learned counsel Mr. K.K.Mehrishi representing few agriculturists and land holders, submitted that their valuable right are infringed on the acquisition of land or on a decision to withdraw the Notification for de-acquisition. At the very outset, he admitted that all those to whom he is representing fought their battle against the acquisition and lost therein up to the Apex Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was admitted by the counsel that so far as the acquisition is concerned, that has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court against them. It was further admitted that larger chunk of land belongs to them was sold to Housing Co-operative Societies.
He was asked as to whether any Housing Co-operative Society can have better right than the land holders. He fairly conceded on that and the transfer of land is otherwise restricted after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and if any transaction is made, then it is to be treated as void.
In view of aforesaid, learned counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi did not press his application further.
In the light of the discussion made above and as agreed by all the learned counsel effectively assisting the matter, the writ petition in regard to issuance of Notification dated 23.09.2002 for de-acquisition of land has become infructuous as subsequent Notification dated 20.02.2008 withdraws the earlier Notification of de-acquisition.
The outcome of the aforesaid is that land remains acquired with the affirmation of acquisition proceedings by the Hon’ble Apex Court and accordingly land vest in the State. The State would accordingly carry out planned development of the area strictly in conformity to the provision of law and till then maintain restrained order mentioned in this judgment.
With the observations aforesaid, the suo motu writ petition stands disposed of.
(M.N. BHANDARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA), C.J.
Preety, Jr.P.A.