The High Court dismissed this writ petition filed by land acquisition petitioners raising unrelated objections to a proposed wetland construction over their acquired land years later, holding the filing was an attempt to frustrate proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3915/2021
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
(2 of 3)
[CW-3915/2021]
06/08/2021
The petitioners by way of this writ petition have prayed as
under:-
“(1) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned notifications dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure-1) & dated 15.03.2011 ( Annexure-2) to the extent of the land of the petitioners land bearing Khasra No.506 (05-1400) and Khasra No.508 (02-05-10) situated at village Thok Teliyan, Ajmer.
(2) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure-3) to the extent of the land of the petitioners land bearing Khasra No.506(15-14-00) and khasra No.508 (02-05-10) situated at village Thok Teliyan, Ajmer.
(3) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned NIT dated 20-10-2020 (Annexure-13) to the extent of the land of the petitioners land bearing Khasra No.506(1514-00) and khasra No.508 (02-05-10) situated at village Thok Teliyan, Ajmer.
(4) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to construct the Wetland as perthe DPR report which was prepared in the year 2007 with the approval of the NRCD and the said report was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.5464/2007.
(5) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to conduct the inquiry from an independent agency that whether the proposed constructed wetland of only 14 Ha area is sufficient to cater the need of purification of 13 MLD effluent and whether the land in question is technically feasible and suitable for constructed wetland where only 7 Ha land is available out of the submerged area i.e. above FTL after leaving 30 mtr. offset on main road because it is the question of expenditure of more than Rs.100 Crore public money and if the project is implemented as per the revised design of wetland in July, 2013 it will lead to the shrinkage of Anasagar main water body by 14 Ha area physically.
(6) Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(7) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
(3 of 3)
[CW-3915/2021]
From the perusal of the above, it is apparent that the land of the petitioners was acquired wayback on the basis of notifications dated 04.12.2009 and 15.03.2011.
In 2021, raising issues which are of no connection with the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands, the present writ petition has been filed and further prayer has been made for conducting an enquiry by the independent agency regarding the proposed consideration of wetland. One of the petitioners apparently is not genuine so far as issue relating to Anasagar Lake is concerned. There is already a PIL pending before this Court wherein the said issue, if any, can always be looked into. The prayer essentially is to get back the land which has already been acquired under notifications dated 04.12.2009 and 15.03.2011.
In this regard, the writ petition filed after almost 10 years is nothing but an attempt to frustrate the entire proceedings.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed nearly 10 years after land acquisition regarding unrelated wetland construction issues is maintainable.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to quash the land acquisition notifications and award.
Saleem Son Of Late Shri Aanda
Smt. Jameela Bano Wife Of Late Shri Rajjak
Jameel Khan Son Of Late Shri Rajjak
Aarfa Bano Daughter Of Late Shri Rajjak
Shakeel Son Of Late Shri Rajjak
Haseena Bano Daughter Of Late Shri Rajjak
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
