- (1.) The intra-court appeals have been preferred as against the common order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the Single Bench in Civil Writ Petitions No. 3732/1996, Ratan Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and 3394/1996, Mahesh Sharma & Ors, vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., thereby dismissing the writ petitions questioning the validity of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 4.2.1991 and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 27.3.1992. Prayer was also made to quash the awards which have been passed on 18.4.1994 and 8.11.1995. The land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short, RIICO). Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 5.2.1991. Newspaper publication took place on 14.3.1991 in "Nav Bharat Times" and on 16.3.1991 in "Dainik Kut Youdh" and local publicity was made, as per respondents, on 3.5.1991. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in official gazette on 27.3.1992 and in two newspapers in "Sandhya Darpan" and "Nav Bharat Times" on 2.5.1992. Local publicity was made on 10.4.1992. As already mentioned, the awards were passed on 18.4.1994 and 8.11.1995.
(2.) The Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners had sold the land to Subhash Sindhi Housing Cooperative Society way back in 1975 and possession had also been handed over to the said Cooperative Society and the Society has divided the land into plots. Consideration was also paid to the petitioners way back in 1975. Thus, they were not having any subsisting right, title or interest in the land to challenge the land acquisition. It was also held that the petitioners were not in possession. Notification under Section 4 was published in the official gazette and two local newspapers and on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti as per report of the Tehsildar dated 3.5.1991. Petitions have been filed in order to frustrate the acquisition. Acquisition has been undertaken strictly as per provisions of the Act. Petitioners have not come with clean hands. Aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petitions, the intra-court appeals have been preferred.
(3.) Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants along with Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, Shri Babulal Sharma, Shri Vaibhav Bhargava, Shri Kinshuk Jain, Shri P.C. Jain, have submitted that the State Government did not apply its mind to the objections. It was necessary for the State Government to apply its mind to the objections and thereafter to render a considered decision before issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Requisite satisfaction has not been recorded while assigning reasons in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenal & Ors., 2005 7 SCC 627 in this regard. He has further-submitted that declaration under Section 6 had been issued beyond the period of one year. Thus, as per Second Proviso of Section 6(1) of the Act, acquisition stood lapsed. No publicity was made on 3.5.1991 by the Tehsildar. The date has to be taken of the notification under Section 4 which is 5.2.1991 or, at the most, 16.3.1991 when newspaper publication took place.;