- (1.) These three writ petitions involve a challenge to the acquisition of land made by the Government vide its notification dated, April 26, 1982 published in Rajasthan Gazette dated, 26.5.82. Since the notification under challenge is common to all the three writ petitions and the points to be determined by this Court are also common, these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The facts which are necessary for the decision of these writ petitions are being referred to from Writ Petition No. 1014/82, Umesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others. The facts of other writ petitions are similar except Khasra numbers of the land sought to be acquired from the other petitioners. The petitioner Umesh Kumar has claimed that he is holding agricultural land measuring 8 Bighas and 8 Biswas falling in Khasra Nos. 538, 540, 541, 547, 548 and 549 situated in village Bhawani Mandi, Tehsil Pachpahar, district Jhalawar. He had purchased this land by a registered sale deed executed on 25th July, 1969 and had initiated proceedings for change in the revenue records. These proceedings were still pending at the time of acquisition. A notification dated, 10.7.91 came to be issued by the government in Urban Development and Housing Department for acquisition of 42 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land falling in various Khasra numbers indicated in the said notification. The object for acquisition of land has been given out as development of village Bhawani Mandi into a residential area by the Rajasthan Housing Board. In this notification issued under section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, the land holders were asked to submit their objections with the district Collector. The petitioner has claimed that he submitted his objections against the acquisition of the land. Copy of the objection petition has been filed on record as ANNEXURE-4. In the objection petition the petitioner claimed that the total land sought to be acquired belonged to 7 families. Their livelihood entirely depended on the agricultural land in question. The petitioner also pleaded that 100 Bighas of land was available near Jaipuria Mill Adarsh School and the same was being used for growing grass and that the said piece of land was more suitable for construction of houses. A notice dated, 23.12.81 was then issued to the petitioner and the same was served upon him on 1.1.82. The petitioner again submitted his representation/objections on 21.2.82. The Officer on Special Duty, Urban Development and Housing Department, fixed 9th April 1982 as the date of hearing, but, nobody came to Bhawani Mandi for hearing the objections. Another date was fixed for hearing as 7th May 1982 and again on that day nobody turned up to hear the objections. Thereafter, the notification dated, 26.4.82 was issued by the Government in the purported exercise of its power under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and it declared that the provisions of Section 5A will not apply to the acquisition proceedings. At the same time, a declaration was made under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Officer on Special Duty was directed to take possession of the land.
(3.) The petitioner has assailed the impugned acquisition on various grounds set out in the petition. His case is that construction of houses by the Rajasthan Housing Board cannot be regarded as public purpose. It is only a statutory duty of the Rajasthan Housing Board. He has then pleaded that the acquisition proceedings have been taken in violation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. The Officer on Special duty did not give hearing to the objections even though he had fixed hearing on two occasions. Further case of the petitioner is that the Government has acted arbitrary in invoking power under section 17(4) because, in reality, there was no urgency warranting action under section 17(4). The inquiry under section-5A could not have been dispensed with : only in exceptional circumstances warranting urgent action inquiry envisaged by section 5A could be dispensed with. The petitioner has claimed that he is being deprived of his hand without even being afforded minimal opportunity of being heard. The petitioner's case is that the Government had not at all applied its mind to the question of urgency before issuing notice under section 17(4). His further case is that even the scheme has not been finalised by the Rajasthan Housing Board on the date when notification under section 17(4)(1) was issued.;