Dismissed

Amra Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2015CW/6867/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court rejected claims that the declaration under Section 6 was time-barred and found that procedural requirements under Section 5A were met. Objections regarding proximity to a sanctry were also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed upholding the validity of the acquisition notification and declaration under Section 6.

Amra Ram Vs State and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

I. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION M0.6863/2014 Kheta Ram I 'i VS." .c statetof Rajl& 05s. ? t+, LI '36 ..& J. " p 'i $5.

¶2

2. S,B.C.JL"1L~~<PETITION0:.1@4'i/2~ ~mt. Shanti Devi

¶3

VS.

¶4

State, of Raj. & Ors.

¶5

3. %B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1797/2014 ~rnd. Shanti Devi I 1 vs.

¶6

State, 04 Raj. & Ors.

¶7

' vs.

¶8

State of Raj. b Ors.

¶9

.. S.B. - - CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.7947/2@12

Geeta Devi

VS.

State of Raj. & Ors.

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION Pd0.7948/2m

¶14

Santosh Devi

¶15

vs.

¶16

State of Raj. 81 Ors.

¶17

12. .S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.79'49/2013 ShanLi Devi

¶18

vs. State of Raj. & Ors..

¶19

13. S.P. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.7950/2014

¶20

Basanti Devi vs. ,Stage of Rajl: @Ors : " '2 " \ "'.J , 14. S.B, CIVIL WRIT PETIT'ION N0.7951/2014 LRs of Ram hajdra vs.

¶21

Statelof Raj. & Ors.

¶22

15S.R. CIVIL 'WRIT PETITION N0.795212014 LRs of Madan Lal

¶23

VS. Stste of Raj. & Ors.

¶24

16. S.@. CIVILL.UV.U.T I?ETITSON NOL7954/2014 '~ukf$a De\ii;

¶25

$s:>, 5t&e,,of:aj..'..& Qrs.. -"&$f+iSv- " - ' " ,,.<:v .,. 2. %tQ,fCvd <'%. **A&, ST.*.? 17. S.B. CIVEL WR'IG, ,ETXXIOMJNO:&"~~~O**

¶26

of' Order ember, 2015

¶27

Plr. N.R. ClioUclhary ... Mr. D.D. Chltlangl Mr. Rajat Dave i Mr. Falgun Buch Mr. V.I<. Mathur

¶28

These writ petitions have'been filed by the petitioners seeking to question the Notification dated 05.06.2012 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') and declaration dated 24.06.2013 issued under Section 6 of khe Act. Further the enquiry report datgd 13.06.2013 subrnirted under Section SA of the Act is also

¶29

questioned in the present writ petitions.

¶30

The respondent State Gnvernment in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act issued a Notification dated 05.06.2012 for acquisition of agricultural Ian d meaquring 157.62 Hectare situated h 'SI :t a. . .-.. at village Gogelav and vill Iwa-in A 2 Dlstrlt 41 Naaur for industrial '4 1 1 .L.4.$ i, development thrdugh Rajasttian State Industr~ai' Development and I- * Investment Corporation Limited ('RIICO'),

¶31

The petitioners raised objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, Nayaur ('LAO'), inter alia, on the ground that yacant government land was situat situa to the land sought to be acquired and tha t ild life sanctuary.; further objections otice under Section 4(5) of the Act, petitioners were dependent on the Ian e, the land should not be acquired; a submi ere a-s no con-pelling circumstances to acqul rb 9 it' ,ble ( estlon. Thereafter the declaration dated 24. hed in newspaper on 06.02.2014; it is alle azette Notification pertaining to the the Act was not l-fceived ~rfceived in the office 01.~1 ased on the above circumstances the alia, challenging the rlotifications on the have lapsed and that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act were not properly co~nplied with.

¶32

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1797/2014 (Srnt. Shanti Devi v. State of Raj. & Ors.) additipnallgrounds have been raised that qua the land of the petitioner, the beneficiary RIICO itself had recommended for not acquiring the land in question, lhowever, the said aspect has

¶33

been ignored while issuing declar3tion u,nder Section 6 of the Act, whith indicates non-application of mind.

¶34

St is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that under Clause-(ii) of First proviso to Section 6 of the Act, no declaration in respect of any under Section 4., Sub-section y,ear from the. date of publication of the Nctificbtion; the Notification">nher Section 4 (I.) of the Act dated 05.06.2012 was published in newspaper on 20.06.2012, the report of the LAO under Section 5A of the Act indicates that the fi -a I was given i.2 the locality j thouG$h, the e declaration under Sect-ion 6 of the wa s published in newspapers on 06. he Gazette had not been r-eceived by

¶35

The above facts under First' provlso under First' provlso to to Section b of the Act t ; in thls regard, reliance was placed on .la of Rajasthan : AIR 1993 (Haj.) ,257 and Lax an & Ors. : 2013 AIR SCW 149.1.

¶36

Further subtr ~k?~acoulsition ition itself is is n gn t justified, inasmu vacant nearby in the category of the petitioners was sought to be acquired though it is well settled that if arid only if necessary, then only the land must be acquired; wild life sanctuary is situated nearby, which would be affected ~y 'the said acquisition and setting up of the industrial area; further submissions were made that the LAO failed to comply with the requirements of Section 5A of the Act and, therefore, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act deserves

¶37

to be set aside.

¶38

Reliance was placed on Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Ilaryana & Ors. : AIR 2012 SC 468, Chairman & Managing Director, TNHB & ,4nr. v. S. Saraswathy & Ors. : 2015 AIR SCW 3414.

¶39

4 and 6 of the ~ct deserve to be of the above submissions.

¶40

In writ petition filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, it was contended besides the submissions that the Notification under Section 6 of the Act has lapsed and that complia isions of Section 5A have not cific recommendation its minutes dated 17.10.2012 (Anne ew of'the fact that corner of the acquired the land in questi land and would n ; it was submittdd that the petition tunity by the LAO by Section 5A of the ct was no proceedings are, of Rajasthan & Ors : AIR 2011 Rai. 79. w. % ., _;j:f;.::$rd_ -s;$~* Replying to the submssons rna'd"e? by \darned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the responjent State submitted that the pleas raised by the petitioners are wholly without any substance, inasmuch as, the declaration was made well within the limitation provided under the Act on 24.06.2013 and the petitioners by ~nisconstruing the provisions of 'the Act seeking to allege Ithat the ' proceedings have lapsed, inasmuch as, the date of publication of

¶41

declaration under Section 6 of the Act in newspaper and Gazette cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the limitation under the provisions sod that the law cited by the petitioners has been overruled long back; it was further submitted that the Gochar land, which petitioners cahnot 1:)~ used for industrial purpose, inasmuch as, 'be: State Government cannot urider the provisions af the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act acquire or change the land use of Charagah land without providing another land, which is essentially not atiailable around the area the petitioners were provided ad rtunity ity of hearing before the ,.a a.a W-L% here is no basis for is no basis for . Government while

¶42

sending the report CO, learned counsel by the petitioners are wholly baseless a P s~/th&~pe ltioners peti t ioners were provided ort under Sect li on 5A of the Act: was mad rom the report dated 1.3.06.2013 (Ann bhatt the entire record was sent along is evident from the proceedinqs filed .- bv tl.~e uekitioners and, -therefore. there is no substance in the

¶43

Regarding the submissions made by the petitioners in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi, it was subrditted that the,State Government after considering the report of the Infrastructure Development Committee JF the respondents, which forms part of the record, has opined .to go I ahead with the land acquisition proceedings and, therefore, the petitioners cannoir be permitted to raise objections in this regard

¶44

besides the fact that only few persons out of the affected agriculturist From the acquisition have chosen to approach this Cou,-t; it was s~~blnitted that the plea raised regarding the Notification under Section 1 cr, of the Act being barred is wholly baseless.

¶45

$It>.? z.3 8 -7%. Reliance was placed h on H/o:du ,tan P&-oleuy CC.3rporation Ltd. v: 1. .. :. ". i. .. PI k %\ $&& l>srius Shapur ~h'ena? & Ors. : (2005) I I 7 SCC '62& IGish.i nr . Upaj Mandi %is ?. Sarniti v. Swarn Singh & Ors. 1 i 4002 i (2) WLN 193, Ri3ghba Singh -. (suprah Usha Stud & ~~riculturh/ Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of 1 1 c -r. Haryana : (201 3) 4 SCC 21 0, ~kadim ~uisain v. State of U.P. & **_@s._ , State -3% of Karnataka : (200.!) 1 f Rajasthan : RLW

¶46

de by learned counsel ced on record.

¶47

$/#e!fpetltioners regardlng the provisions of Act, the respondent - the specific dates cated that the Notification under Section 4(1),of the Act was made on 05.06.2012. . , -,. ?"" "Tm iB: '.-,^..-..* **$";YQ.* - , ,,- .,< _f;qa$_ published in Gazette o$+ ?9!.06,.2012; publis "7 ed in newspap& on 20.06.2012 and paste,d at: the place of acquisition on 27.06.h012; I report dated 13.06.2014 was sent by the LAO to the department of rndustrics under Section 5.4 of the Act and whereafter amended report was sent on 22.07.201.3; declaration under Section '6 of the Act was niade on 24.06.2013 and the same was published in Gazette on 05.08.2013 and newspapers on 06.02.2014.

¶48

From a bare look at the dates indicated by the State, which dates have not been disputed by the ptitioners, it is apparent that the date of. publication of the Notification under Sec$ion 4(1) of the Act woulj be Zi'.06.%01% as the Section itself;provides that the last of the dates of ?$-it " . . T '2 @ & -* , publication and giving of $&blc pr:,otce-wo&ld be tQ.e date of pilblication , . ; !. I* ..L .i? # i? ? * 9 ,A 8 , AP . of..the Notification.,

¶49

The declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act .and the requirement of the proviso as to whether making of the declaration is sufficient 01- its publication in newsp'aper or Gazette would be year as prescribed

¶50

The judgment LQJ~ was publication in {:hat- the publicatio ,,ewspaper/Gazette, h of Jagrup Singh (.supra) already sfan Won'ble Supreme Court in S.1-i. Rangap

¶51

Hon'ble Supreme Cou on I<hadim Hussain (

¶52

"8. It is perti does not pr made under S that aRer an gap between the malting o&the order or p declaration and its publication in the Ricial.,az-ette,nW-bereaq-th:? time limit for the I e ,- , ..!I making of an ordqr 'i&fpr$red,b.nde$~~ection 6(1), the legislature advisedly did not provide fo; any tihe limit in respect of the steps required to be taken under sub-section (2) of SecLion 6. If the contention of Mr. G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel for the appellant Is correct, the effect would be that not only the declaration would have to be published within the time prescribed under the proviso to Section 6(1) but all other- steps, like publication In the daily newspaper and the Collector causing public notice of the declaration to be given dt a convenient places in the locality, must also be completed within a period of one year of Sectlon 4 notlficatlon. This could certainly not be a consequence contemplated by the legislature. As already observed, the purpose of Section 6 notification being to give a final declaration with regard to :he need of the land for .

¶53

public purpose, the interest of the land owners was sufficiently safeguarded with the requirement of the making of the declaration under Section 6(1) within a prescribed period. It is difficult for us to read into sub-section (2) the provisions of the proviso to Section 6(1) which relate to the time limit for issuance of the notification under Section 6(1)."

¶54

rs. v. State of Rajasthan 8( Ors. :

down by Hon'ble

S.H.

Ramnath

te of

So far the first limb of submissions is concerned, where it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the declaration under Se has been issued beyond ally baseless and untenable. It ' eriod of one year ct of 1894 is to be counte under Sectio declaration. Th n under Section 6- being only a has been held irrelevant. In the by the learned co has' made it clear one year from the notification under Section 4(1) woul ct; however, the operation, and of n the civil Court on aration. The said decision is other o the facts of the present case. T resent case are wherein the H the law in no uncertain terms

¶60

leave no roo notification has 11A the period of two years has to be commuted from the date of "publication of the declaration". As distinct from this under the first proviso to Section 6(1) a "declaration" cannot be made after the expiry of one year from the date of "publication of the notification under Section 4". The words "published" in clauses (i) and (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6(1) refer to the publication of notification under Section 4. A plain reading o'f Section 6 shows that a distinction is made between a "declaration" and a "publication". Viewed from this angle. the wordings of the first proviso to Sec. 6(1) become important. The proviso lays down that no

¶61

declaration (under Section 6) shall be made a.fter expiry of three years [under clause (i)] where the notification under Sec.4 is published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after expiry of one year [under clause (ii)] where notification under Sec.4 was published after commencement of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus

¶62

declaration is made t a time gap between the making of the declaration and its.

¶63

to Section 6

¶64

at a convenient Section 6 N

¶65

the provisions relate to the time .limif"tor issuance oPthe notification under Sectio

¶66

The Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out in Rangappa (supra) that the view being expressed therein was supported by the principles stated in the case of Khadim Hussain vs. State of U.P.,: (1976) 1 SCC 843. The decision as referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Eugenio Misquita has been explained and distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriniwas and Rangappa (supra). In Rangappa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out,-

¶67

... In Krishi Utpadan's case and Eugenio's case there was no reference made to the binding decision of this Court in Khadim Hussain's case, even otherwise, in both these cases, declaration under Section 6 had

¶68

been published within one year of the notification under Section 4 and the question in the form in which it has arisen for consideration in the instant case did not arise there.

¶69

In view of the principles enunciated and settled by the decisions aforesaid there remains hardly any doubt that the last date of publication of the notification under Section 4 and the date of making

¶70

'the point of law and the IangE

¶71

and, therefore, th

¶72

the submission judgments noticed exhaustively dealt wit

¶73

oviso to Section 6 of the Act y the respondents; stance as in the upreme Court has

¶74

In view of the I noticed hereinbe

¶75

Notification under Secti~ and the declaratio 24.06.2013, it cann Clause (ii) of First provi

¶76

The for the petitioners regarding non-compliance of provisions of Section 5A of the Act deserves consideration in the light of the submissions made in the writ petition; the petitioners other than Smt. Shanti Devi have raised ground as under in their writ petitions:-

¶77

'D: Because, even after submission of the objection, neither any inquiry contemplated under section 5A has been conducted nor any opportunity of hearing has been given by respondent No.2, to the objection raised by the petitioner. The

¶78

objection raised bjl the petitioner and other agriculturist as well as Gram Panchayat Balwa and Gram Panchayat Gogelav were not considered and respondent no.3 forwarded enquiry report under section 5(A) for decision of the State Government. 'Under Section 5(A) to afford the opportunity and to make enquiry, both are mandatory. The Collector has power .to send his recommendation to State Government after hearing objection and ultimate decision will rest on the Government. It is evident along with etitioner and other cultivators in gross violation of principle? natural justice and section 5(A)(2) of the Act of 1894 is liable to be quashed and set aside."

¶79

A bare look at the repot .06.2013 (~nnexure-7) made by the LAO, unde indicates that the Officer had notice etitioners and that the objections were s as.given by RIICO, which reply was als nd after hearing the petitioners and their cou inter alia, observing that if the proposed I ad to extension of industrial area, the vil ent and would lead to production of daily have any industrial plot vacant for esta ustries were seeking land for setting up in be allotted only after seeking environment the acquisition was justified and ordered for sending the record to the State Government.

¶80

A look at the order-sheets in the petition filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, it is apparent that the LAO, after receiving the response from RIICO fixed the matter on 20.02.2013 for hearing and the same was adjourned from 20.02.2013 to 30.04.2013 and from 30.04.2013 to 23.05.2013, wherein; the counsel for the objectors was present and

¶81

¶82

was heard and again on 13.06.2013 in the presence of counsel -for the petitioners, the report was sent by LAO, the order-sheets (Annexure19) and indication in the report dated 13.06.2013 regarding hearing of the objectors and their counsil before sending the report under Section 5A of of provisions of

¶83

Section 5A

¶84

Article 226 of the Constitution-o 5%~ dia; the LAO has noticed various b&$#as&Regorica~~y held that the land in question w trial area and that RIICO had no Ian to the expectant industrialists and, th d that the objections

¶85

land in question w RIICO had no Ian industrialists and, th raised by the petitione

¶86

concerned, on 17.10.2012 and 04 assed regarding the land in question obse hasra was located on extreme corner of t ot be of any use to the Corporation, ho titioner never placed the said minutes indicating opinion about the land before the LAO as is evident from the obj ner (Annexure-11) as 1 apparently the same were filed before the meeting of RIICO and the petitioner chose not to file any supplementary submissions before the LAO; as to whether at all the RIICO pursuant to the meeting of the Infrastructure Development Committee, chose to act on the said rnihtes is not apparent from the record, however, the RIICO in its reply has categorically stated that the State Government after

¶87

considering the report of the Infrastructure Development Committee of ' RIICO has given its go ahead with the land acquisition proceedings a'nd, therefore, contentions raised by the petitioner based on the minutes of the Infrastructure Development Committee, looses its significance and Section 5A of

¶88

record was not sent by the ith report as envisaged by Section 5A (2) of t g of the plea rasied was raised in the writ petition so as ents in this regard and/or any occasion f f nd to the said aspect; the plea appears to h by going through the requirements of Section h a view to some

¶89

writ petition so as and/or any occasion f f the plea appears to h requirements of Section how susta-in the o

¶90

indicates that the objections, the r adiudication to the State Government. -

¶91

on 5A of the Act report itself that the being sent for final '4

¶92

In view thereof, e plea raised by the petitioners regarding the record being not sent alongwith report has any substance.

¶93

So far as the objection regarding availability of land of Charagah is concerned, there is substance in the arguments made by learned counsel for the State that the land of Charagah cannot be set apart for industrial. purpose without providing alternative land for Charagah and

¶94

¶95

that other than the land belonging to the petitioners themselves in and around the said area the land for Charagah was not available, the plea raised by the petitioners looses its significance and/or the objectivity, inasmuch 'as, if the land of Charagah was to be shifted somewhere

¶96

else, the same the petitioneis Charagah .U^%.. I n7which is the only land available aroun .5- 1.. h obje?$ts$< about proximity of wild life near the acqui ' X ., lP . 18("1st% its significance as ttie setting up of industries wo .#

¶97

to applicable environment law

¶98

The judgments ci apparently no appl case.

¶99

he petitioners have ces of the present

¶100

In the case of R pra) the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme t land should be used for public purpose has a on as it would always be subject to availability of ch in the present case is admittedly land of C ase of Laxman Lal (supra) has no appl inasmuch as, matter pertains to the ct, 1953 and the Notification was held beyond limi{ation as the~sqme was issued beyond the prescribed period n was not taking into consideration. Further, the judgment in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, TNHB (supra) deals with the effect of partial quashing of Notification and the same has no application. In the judgment of this Court in Kailash (supra) it was found as a fact that the forwarding letter only referred to sending of the inquiry report and description of the land and not of the record, however. as notired

¶101

hereinbefore, there is a specific reference of sending of the record in the report and, therefore, the said judgment also has no application. In view of what has been discussed above, it is apparent that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act cannot be said to be made beyond Act, the LAO has ofkthe Act, the i# r

¶102

by the petitioners based on and proximity of wild life has apparently after

¶103

has made declaration under.-Sg~Jjr: , There is no

¶104

substance in. the writ ~e?f

¶105

No order as to

¶106

cost

¶107

BHANSALI), J.

Amra Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amra Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampratap Charan Vs State and Ors.

Marwar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pani Devi and Ors.

Iliyas Khan Vs State and Ors.

Ram Lal Meghwal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

State of Raj. Vs M/S. Nav Bharat Const. Company

Haney Sunariwal Vs State and Ors.