- (1.) All the writ petitions arise out of the same impugned notification dated 21.06.2010 whereby a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894') has been issued for acquisition of the land ad measuring 39.51465 hectare in village Khirajpur, Billahedi, Kehrani & Mundanamev, Tehsil Tijara, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, District Alwar. The aforesaid notification includes the land of the petitioners. SBCWP No.13120/2010 is the leading case for reference to the necessary facts.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that at an earlier point of time, part of the land in the khatedari of the petitioners was acquired in respect of which the petitioners were compensated in August 2008 following an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. It has been submitted that the land of the petitioners earlier having not been acquired and with the petitioners residing on the land, now sought to be acquired, the proceedings under the impugned notification are absolutely arbitrary, mala fide and liable to be quashed and set aside. It has been submitted that earlier in notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 25.07.2006, the land ad measuring 483.84 hectare belonging to various khatedars including the petitioners had been sought to be acquired and on objections made thereto the Government had dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land now again sought to be acquired under the Act of 1894. Resulting from the earlier exclusion of their land from the acquisition, estoppel has been pleaded by the petitioners as a ground to challenge to the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 21.06.2010. It has been submitted that the petitioners submitted objections and representations against the acquisition of their land, now covered under the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 issued in 2010, yet no heed has been paid thereto.
(3.) On notice, similar replies to the petition have been filed both by the State and RIICO. In consonance therewith, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that for land of the petitioners under acquisition Section 4 notification dated 23.06.2009 was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 30.06.2009. Publication as mandated by the Act of 1894 was also made in two daily newspapers i.e. Arun Prabha and Rajasthan Patrika on 12.07.2009. The objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A were considered and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, now impugned before this Court, made on 21.06.2010. It has been submitted that land under acquisition is fundamentally agricultural land. In the master plan the land now under the acquisition is required for roads and industrial plots in the course of essential extension of the Bhiwadi Industrial area and for this reason, the objections of the petitioners were considered and rejected as the acquisition of the land in issue is imperative for the integrity of the industrial area development in the Bhiwadi Industrial area being undertaken by the State through RIICO, a State owned Company. It has been submitted that the said industrial area is amongst the main hubs in Rajasthan for promotion of industrial growth in the State. It has not been disputed, say counsel, that the purpose of the acquisition is a public purpose whereby socio economic benefits to the population in the whole of the Rajasthan would accrue. It has been submitted that in the acquisition earlier made, the parcel of land in respect of which the present petition has been filed had to be left out as it was found by this Court under its order dated 02.04.2009 in SBCWP No.7103/2007 that qua the said land the objections of the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 had not been heard consequent to which the earlier declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 following the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 25.07.2006 was set aside. This, it was submitted would not confer any indefeasible right in the petitioners to perpetual exclusion of their lands from land acquisition by the State Government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain. It was then submitted that the ground of estoppel agitated by the petitioners is wholly misdirected in law as the fact situation for the assertion of the said ground is not even remotely made out. It has been further submitted that it was not the petitioners' case that they have in any manner on a representation by the State Government altered their position owing to which the State Government should be held to its purported representation and under duty in equity to exclude the acquisition of the land of the petitioners in spite of the said acquisition being necessary for the integral development / extension of the Bhiwadi Industrial area. It has been finally submitted that aside of the aforesaid, there can be no estoppel against statute and the acquisition of the petitioners' land is in pursuance of the State power of eminent domain in common law statutorily recognized in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.;