- (1.) These intra-court appeals, preferred against the set of common orders and involving identical issues on similar facts, have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. For an outline, it could be noticed that the controversy relates to the proceedings for acquisition of the land situated at village Dhoinda, Tehsil and District Rajsamand, as taken up by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'/'the Act of 1894'] for the alleged public purpose of a housing scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board at Rajsamand. The appellants herein, allegedly having interest in the land sought to be acquired, preferred the writ petitions in challenge to these land acquisition proceedings essentially on the ground that their objections against the proposed acquisition had neither been properly considered nor appreciated by the authorities concerned. The learned Single Judge of this Court, while rejecting the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners-appellants, has dismissed all the writ petitions in limine, 7 of them (CWP Nos. 911/2008, 929-933/2008, and 895/2008) by the common order dated 26.03.2008; and another (CWP No. 6147/2008 ) by the order dated 16.10.2008 with reference to the previous order dated 26.03.2008. Assailing the orders aforesaid, the writ petitioners have preferred these special appeals with the submissions that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on irrelevant considerations and the acquisition proceedings deserve to be annulled with quashing of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act that remains illegal for the reason of having been issued beyond one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act; and further for the reason of the respondents having not extended them the requisite opportunity of personal hearing as envisaged by Section 5-A of the Act. Per Contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the declaration has validly been made within the prescribed time; that the appellants have been afforded adequate opportunity to state their objections; and that the State Government, while issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, has duly considered all the relevant reports and the records.
(2.) In relation to the issues involved, the relevant background aspects and the material facts appearing from the pleadings, from the material as placed on record, and from the material as placed for perusal during the course of hearing, could be noticed, in brief and in their feasible chronology, as follows. On 24.07.2006, the State Government in its Urban Development Department proceeded to issue the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for the intended acquisition of the land in question for the housing scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board at Rajsamand while authorising its Officer on Special Duty, Urban Development and Housing Department, having office at Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as 'the OSD'], to carry out the functions stated in the notification per Section 4 (2) of the Act. The notification aforesaid was published in the Official Gazette on 01.08.2006; and in the newspapers on 12.10.2006. On 01.11.2006, the persons interested in the land sought to be acquired proceeded to state their protest against the intended acquisition while alleging that the land earlier available with them came to be acquired for the purpose of a company J.K.Industries and they were given the land in question in lieu thereof; that they had, with efforts, made the land arable and were cultivating the same for their livelihood; and that only a little portion of the land in the vicinity could be sold by the Municipal Board and about 200 bighas of land was lying vacant thereat. This representation dated 01.11.2006 was addressed to Her Excellency the Governor of the State of Rajasthan and was endorsed to the various State functionaries/authorities including the Collector of the District Rajsamand and so also the Chief Engineer of the Rajasthan Housing Board. On 22.11.2006, the aforesaid OSD proceeded to issue public notice of such notification inviting objections within 30 days from the date of such notice from the persons having interest in the land in question. It appears that thereafter, specific objections against the proposed acquisition, in the same terms as aforesaid, were made to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur by the petitioner-appellant Bherulal (SAW No.467/2009) and the memo of these objections was sent to the OSD by registered post on 09.12.2006, as is available in the original record of the OSD at pages 15-17. From the record placed for perusal, it appears that various reports were obtained by the OSD regarding the situation at site, the DLC rates, the position of revenue record etc. and thereafter, on 27.02.2007, the OSD proceeded to forward a report, under Section 5-A of the Act, to the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur while making recommendations for acquisition of the land in question. The said report dated 27.02.2007 reads as under:-
(3.) On the other hand, it appears that on 26/27.02.2007, the concerned Patwari visited the site and forwarded a report to the Tehsildar who, in turn, forwarded such report on 01.03.2007 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajsamand who further forwarded the same to the District Collector, Rajsamand under the communication dated 05.03.2007. Thereupon, the District Collector, Rajsamand proceeded to address the communication dated 24.04.2007 to the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Jaipur pointing out the objections raised by the khatedars, the report made by the Sub Divisional Officer, and the position of the revenue record. The learned District Collector, Rajsamand stated in the said communication dated 24.04.2007 as under:-;