- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Samiti through its Chairman Dr. R.K. Singh, challenging the notification dated 5/7/2012(Annex.2), and the declaration dated 19/6/2013(Annex.21) issued by the respondents under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the acquisition of the lands bearing Khasra Nos.578 admeasuring 2 ares, 579 admeasuring 2 ares, 580 admeasuring 17 ares, 582 admeasuring 2 areas, 583 admeasuring 46 ares, 584 admeasuring 1 ares, 585 admeasuring 22 ares, 586 admeasuring 1 ares, 587 admeasuring 7 ares and 588 admeasuring 56 ares, total in aggregate 1 hectare 74 ares, situated in Village Balla Boda, Tehsil & District Alwar.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered society, which had purchased the lands in question from one Shri Girraj Prasad S/o. Sampat Ram and others, through the sale deed dated 17/5/2003, and since then the petitioner Samiti is in possession of the said lands. According to the petitioner, it had applied to the UIT for regularization of the use of the lands in question for institutional purpose as it was running a Girls Educational Institution, namely, Maharani Convent School in the building constructed upon the land in question since 2005. It is further case of the petitioner that the State Government had issued the notification dated 5/7/2012 under Section 4(1) of the said Act for acquiring certain agriculture lands including the lands of the petitioner, for the residential colony proposed to be developed by the UIT, Alwar. The petitioner having come to know about the said notification had filed its objections on 28/8/2012 (Annex.19), however the Land Acquisition Officer without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner submitted the report rejecting the objections of the petitioner (Annex.20). Thereafter the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 19/6/2013, however the petitioner Samiti was not served with any such declaration. The said notification issued under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act therefore have been challenged on the grounds interalia that the purpose shown for acquisition could not be said to be a public purpose, and that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of hearing in the enquiry proceedings conducted under Section 5A of the said Act. During the pendency of the petition, the award has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28/4/2015, which had got the approval of the State Government on 5/6/2015, and therefore, the petitioner has filed the additional affidavit in this regard.
(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta for the petitioner that the whole proceedings of Land Acquisition initiated under the said Act were required to be quashed and set aside, as the Land Acquisition Officer had not given the petitioner the opportunity of hearing in the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the said Act, though the petitioner was the person interested, he having purchased the lands in question by the registered sale deed. He further submitted that the petitioner was also not served with any notice under Section 6 or Section 9 of the said Act before passing the award on 5/6/2015, which was passed during the pendency of the present petition. According to him, the petitioner was running an Educational Institution, namely, Maharani Convent School in the building constructed upon the lands in question since 2005, and the acquisition of the said land was sought to be made ignoring the objections raised by the petitioner. He also submitted that the purpose for acquisition of lands in question for residential colony could not be said to be the public purpose, and therefore the lands, which are otherwise agriculture lands and for which the application for regularization to be used for an institutional purpose has been made, should not be acquired. Mr. Gupta has relied upon the decisions in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors, 2005 7 SCC 627, & in case of Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. vs. J. Sivaprakasam & Ors, 2011 1 SCC 330 in support of his submissions. Mr. Gupta has also further pressed into service the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 2013'), more particularly Section 24(1) thereof for submitting that the award having not been made on the date of coming into force the said Act of 2013 i.e. 1/1/2014, the petitioner would be entitled to the compensation as per Section 24(1)(a) of the said Act of 2013, however the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation to the petitioner accordingly. He also submitted that the said Act of 2013 having come into force with effect from 1/1/2014, the whole proceedings initiated under the Old Act of 1894 would stand lapsed.;