BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated 23rd February, 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the stay application filed by the petitioners-appellants along-with the writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants canvassed that petitioners-appellants are the co-owners of the property and land situated at Khasra No. 330, Gram Badodiya, Station Road, Jaipur which measured approximately 11495 sq. yards. On 6.1.2011, the State Government issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquiring land in Gram Badodiya and village Hathroi for the Mansarovar-Chandpole corridor of the Jaipur Metro Project. Objections were filed by the petitioners-appellants under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 against the proposed acquisition as per the Notification dated 6.1.2011, however, the same were not decided. On 17.8.2011, the respondents issued an amendment to the original notification dated 6.1.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 11941/2011 in the name and style of Hotel Radhe Krishna challenging the notification dated 17.8.2011 to the extent of modifying the notification dated 6.1.2011. The Single Judge of this Court albeit granted the stay order, but later-on it was vacated on 3.11.2011, with the liberty to raise all possible objections against the Notification dated 17.8.2011. The petitioners-appellants filed the objections, but sans considering and deciding the objections, the respondents issued a Notification under Section 6 readwith Section 17 (1) & (4) of the Act of 1894 waiving off the mandatory requirement of considering and deciding the objections of the land holders under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Possession of the petitioners-appellants' land had been taken, but no compensation under Section 17(3A) has been paid to them. The petitioners-appellants filed the writ petition, but the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 23.2.2012 declined to interfere and arbitrarily dismissed the stay application. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that this appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order, which is not maintainable. The writ petition has still been pending before this Hon'ble Court. He further contended that vide Notification dated 26.12.2011, the urgency clause was invoked by the State Government, so as to complete the Jaipur Metro Project within stipulated time for the benefit of public at large and therefore, in such circumstances, the issue regarding the consideration of objections under Section 5A of the Act was automatically dispensed with. He further canvassed that in the interim prayer, the petitioners-appellants sought the relief that the respondents be restrained from taking possession of the property of the petitioners. Since the possession of the property of the petitioners had already been taken on 2.2.2012 by the authorized officers of Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation and Tehsildar, Land Acquisition Department, JDA, Jaipur, the interim prayer made by the petitioners-appellants had became infructuous. It is pointed out by the respondents in their reply that in pursuance of the notification dated 6.1.2011, 17.8.2011 and 26.12.2011, a Company in the name and style of M/s. Trade Swift Developers (Private) Limited had filed a claim petition before Land Acquisition Officer, JDA, Jaipur claiming its right regarding the land measuring 1916 sq. yards (out of total land measuring 11608 sq. yards situated in khasra no. 330 Village Badodia, Tehsil & District Jaipur). This claim had been filed seeking compensation of Rs. 41,19,40,000/- from the State Government. The basis of the statement of claim filed by M/s. Trade Swift Developers is that petitioners-appellants herein had executed an agreement dated 19.10.2007 regarding the sale of rights of the above stated land. However, this aspect of the matter had not been disclosed and had been concealed by the petitioners-appellants in the writ petition. It has further been averred that the State Government on account of technical recommendation by DMRC and as per the Schedule of Dimensions for Standard Gauze, decided to change the sharp horizontal curve of 94 mts. radius (proposed between metro railway station and Rajputana Sheraton Hotel) to 120 mts. considering the designing of boogies and track structure to ease out the curve and keeping in mind the safety of public at large. Accordingly, amended notification U/s. 4 was issued on 17.8.2011. Thereafter, considering the urgency, State Government issued Notification dated 26.12.2011 u/s. 6 readwith section 17 (1) and (4) respectively. Even otherwise, the question of considering the objections u/s. 5A does not apply to the present case, since after invoking urgency clause U/s. 17 of the Act, the proceedings / inquiry U/s. 5A are automatically dispensed with. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the stay application observed that the Jaipur Metro Phase-I was a time-bond project with many moving parties which had to be controlled and managed. This Court could not oversee the manner of execution and determine the manner of adhering to time lines. In the exercise of judicial review and more particularly at the stage of interim relief, this Court had to determine whether the subjective satisfaction in invoking Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 is prima facie vitiated. Further the question of balance of convenience had also to be kept in mind. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on letter dated 23.1.2012 written by Shri Mangu Singh, Managing Director of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the consultant to the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Project, wherein it has been stated that there was an urgent need for early handing over of the land at Vaidya Vatika, Radhe Krishna Hotel, Rajputana and Ganga Tower, Shyam Nagar. Shri Manghu Singh further stated in the letter that unless the land at the above locations was handed over by 15th January, 2012, DMRC may not be in a position to complete the section by June, 2013 due to non completion of the civil structures. In the case of Rajendra Kishan Gupta Versus Union of India reported in (2010) 9 SCC 46; Shanta Talwar & Another Versus Union of India & Others (2011) 5 SCC 287 and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.12.2011 in PIL Petition No. 17175/2010, interim stay order has not been granted on Metro Project. In other cases also, interim stay which were granted by the Single Bench of this Court, have been vacated. No irreparable injury is going to be caused because such issues are to be decided at the time of final hearing.
(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that the Single Bench is justified in denying to grant the stay order. Metro line is such a project which cannot be brook any delay. The Division Bench of this Court in PIL Petition No. 17175/2010 has considered the matter. Detailed order has been passed rejecting the prayer for interim stay. In other writ petitions pending before the Single Bench, interim orders have been vacated. There has to be parity with respect to the grant of interim stay also. Thus, the Single Bench was justified in refusing to grant the interim stay. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the interlocutory order rendered by the Single Bench, which gainsaid to grant the stay order. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of appeal, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. ;