SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE above numbered writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts of the cases are identical and the notifications for acquisition of land issued under sub-section (2) of Section 52 as well as Sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short, the (JIT Act) in each of the aforesaid cases are the same. For the disposal of the above numbered writ petitions the facts of D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1124/1984 Narain V. State of Rajasthan and others alone shall be stated.
(2.) THE petitioner Narain is the holder of agricultural lands bearing khasra Nos. 100, 101 and 102 measuring 12 bighas 6 biswas situated in the revenue village. Sewage Farm, Tehsil and District Jaipur. THE said agricultural lands are situated within the boundaries of the Municipal limits of Jaipur City and earlier it was within the jurisdiction of the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur and now under the jurisdiction of Jaipur Development Authority (for short, the JDA ). THE petitioner and others were holding agricultural lands in revenue villages Hathori, Bhojpura, Kishanpole and Bhawanishankarpura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur, which with the ever increasing organisations were included in the boundaries of Municipal limits of Jaipur City and were acquired for residential purposes from time to time. THE petitioner and others were allotted lands situated in the then revenue village Sodala (also known as Sodawala) and Kartarpura and the present revenue village 'sewage Farm' was carved out in the year 1944 out of the aforesaid two villages. A notification in Hindi bearing No. LA/u-3/1-C/79 dated October 8, 1979, was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra- ordinary Part VI (Kha) dated October 8/10, 1979, under signature of Land Acquisition Officer, UIT Jaipur by the order of the Governor to the effect that the lands mentioned there were required for the purposes of providing multipurpose schemes, i. e. for construction of houses for residential, commercial and industrial units, in Sector No. 1 (c) Jaipur under Sec. 52 (2) read with Sub-section (8) of the UIT Act. It covers the land in dispute also. In all 9765 bighas 8 biswas of land was sought to be acquired and the notification was issued in respect of that land and in the said lands the land of the petitioner and others was included. The petitioner and others on coming to know of the said notification filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer inter alia on the grounds that the proposed acquisition was contrary to and in violation of the Master Plan in force in Jaipur city and as such it was contrary to the provisions of Section 72 of the UIT Act and that no scheme was sanctioned and/or notified for the area in question under Sec. 38 of the UIT Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, so far as the agricultural lands in question are concerned, said that the land was not fit for residential purposes, level of the area being lower and the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer dated September 4, 1980, were under consideration of the State Government for long time and in the meantime thfe UIT Jaipur was dissolved and Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 came into force under which the Jaipur Development Authority was constituted sometime in the year 1982. Sometime in the year 1983 the JDA took a decision that there was need of another city level park as one already existing, namely, Ramniwas Garden, looking to the increase 0f urban population was not sufficient and a news item appeared to that effect in the Rajasthan Patrika dated May 30, 1983. As the park was proposed to be established in the land of the petitioner, he made a representation to the Governor of Rajasthan on June 4, 1983 at Mount Abu where the Governor was! camping during summer, but a notification No. F. 5 (14)/ TP/78 dated March 7, 1984 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra-ordinary Part (Kha) dated April 20, 1984 under sub-section (1) of Sec. 52 of the UIT Act wherein the agricultural lands in question were ordered to be acquired. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification (Annr. 6) dated October 8, 1979 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra-Ordinary of even date issued under sub-section (2) of Sec. 52 of the UIT Act as well as the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Sec 52 of that Act (Annr. 9) dated March 7, 1984 which Was published in the Rajasthan Gazette extra-ordinary dated April 20, 1984, inter alia on the grounds, that the purpose stated in the earlier notification was different than the one stated in the latter notification issued under sub-section (1) of Sec. 52 of the UIT Act; the latter notification dated March 7, 1984 is mala fide on the ground that no proceedings for acquisition either under the UIT Act, or under the JDA Act or under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short 'the State Act') were ever taken for the purpose of establishing a city level park and the acquisition is contrary to the purpose shown in the Master Plan as in the Master Plan the land use was shown as 'agricultural, nurseries, orchard, poultries and dairies', and not public park or play-ground and as such acquisition is contrary to the Master Plan and is in violation of Sec. 31 of the UIT Act; framing of the scheme was a condition precedent and no scheme was sanctioned by the State Government. Other grounds were also raised including the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 52 of the UIT Act but during the course of arguments the said ground was not pressed and even otherwise the said provision has already been upheld by this court and we have already held that despite there being the State Act in force, the UIT Act being a special provision for he purpose, the acquisition of land under the UIT Act is permissible. The petitions have been contested on behalf of the JDA which after its establishment as aforesaid has stepped in the shoes of the then UIT. Written arguments have been submitted by the parties.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition of land under the UIT Act must have been in conformity with the Master Plan and there could be no acquisition for a purpose, for the land use, otherwise than one shown in the Master! Plan. There appears to be no dispute that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, in the Master Plan, the land use has been shown for the purpose of 'agriculture, nurseries, orchard, poultries and dairies. It will further be seen that so far as recreation under which the parks including the city level park as one is sought to be established is concerned, it has been shown separately in the Master Plan. Similarly, in the Master Plan the residential/commercial area or in other words, the land use for these purposes has been shown separately. Chapter II of the UIT Act deals with the preparation of Master Plan. Under Section 4 of the UIT Act, which deals with the contents of the Master Plan, the master plan shall define the various zones into which the urban area for which the plan has been prepared may be divided for the purposes of its improvement and indicate the matter in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used, and it shall serve as basic pattern of frame work within which the improvement schemes of the various zones may be prepared. Section 5 provides the procedure to be followed in the preparation of a master plan. The master plan has to be submitted to the State Government after preparation for its approval and the State Government may either approve the master plan without modifications or with such modifications as it may consider necessary or reject it with directions for the preparation of a fresh master plan. There is no dispute that a Master Plan for Jaipur city was prepared and it became final sometime in the year 1976. It was to remain in force upto the year 1991 and its operation has been extended by the State Government. Chapter V of the UIT Act deals with framing of schemes. Under Section 31 of the said Act as and when the Trust decides to frame a scheme for any area or part of area for which it has been established, then if for and in respect of that urban area a master plan has been prepared and approved and is in operation, every scheme framed by the Trust in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the UIT Act shall conform to such master plan and shall not be framed so as to affect an alteration in the different zones defined by the master plan. A reference to Section 4 of the UIT Act has already been made in the earlier part of this order and it has already been said that in the master plan various zones have not only to be defined for which the master plan has been prepared, but the manner has also been indicated in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used. Thus, the land use in each zone has to be shown in the Master Plan. It is the case of the petitioner under para No. 18 (vii) of the writ petition that while preparing the Master Plan the lands of village Sewage Farm were proposed to be used for public park and open spaces and on an objection of the petitioner and other inhabitants of the village Sewage Farm such objections were upheld by the State Government and the land use was kept agricultural, nurseries, orchards, poultries and dairies and not public parks and open spaces which is clear from the master plan as approved by the State Government on June 6, 1976. Though, no reply has been filed on behalf of the JDA and other respondents, but as said above, written arguments were filed and for the disposal of the present batch of the writ petitions we will take the written submissions as the reply to the writ petition. ;