Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") by the respondents, in respect of the lands in question for the development of the scheme "Mohanlal Sukhadia" of the U.I.T. The petitioner has also/challenged the award dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, (Dy. Secretary) U.I.T., Kota, and alternatively has prayed that if the Court came to the conclusion that the reference proceedings under Section 18 has been initiated by the petitioner, the petitioner be allowed to raise all grounds having come into existence in view of the new Act i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013").
(2.) IT appears that in the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 23.05.2013 and was published at the conspicuous places and in the newspapers as required. The petitioner pursuant to the said notification had also submitted the objections in the enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Officer vide the letter dated 29.06.2013 had submitted his report of the said enquiry to the State Govt., after considering the objections of the persons interested including of the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government had issued the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 04.07.2013 and the same was also duly published in the manner prescribed under the Act. It also appears that the State Govt. had invoked the provisions contained in Section 17 of the said Act for taking the possession of the land in question. The public notice under Section 9(1) was also issued on 12.07.2013, pursuant to which the petitioner had submitted her claim. Finally the Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 25.09.2013, which was approved by the State Government on 04.10.2013. It appears that pending this petition, the petitioner had also submitted an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the said Act before the Collector on 24.03.2014, as per Annexure -18. In the backdrop of these facts, it is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the said Act were not in consonance with the mandatory provisions contained in the said Act and were discriminatory in nature, inasmuch as the lands of influential persons were left out from acquisition, whereas the petitioner's lands have been sought to be acquired without any justification. According to him, the Land Acquisition Officer had also not duly considered the objections filed by the petitioner during the enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act, and hence the subsequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act was also illegal. He further submitted that though there was no urgency in acquiring the lands in question, the State Government had invoked Section 17 of the said Act. Mr. Sharma also submitted that the petitioner had submitted the objections under Section 9(1), however no opportunity of hearing was granted to her and the award was made hurriedly by the Land Acquisition Officer. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, he submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to the compensation under the provisions contained in the said Act of 2013. Lastly, he submitted that action of respondents in acquiring the petitioner's land for the so called public purpose was the colourable exercise of powers, and hence the entire proceedings were required to be held arbitrary and illegal. He urged in the alternative that the petitioner should be awarded compensation as per the new Act, 2013.
(3.) LEARNED Govt. Counsel Mr. Satya Narayan Kumawat for the respondents has relied upon the reply filed to the petition and submitted that the objections of the petitioner were duly considered by the Land acquisition Officer from time to time, and after making of the award, the cheque dated 07.11.2014 of the requisite compensation was also issued and forwarded to the Tehsildar, U.I.T., Kota for disbursement. He also submitted that the petitioner having already made an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the said Act, she is not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this juncture submitted that the provisions of the Act of 2013 could not be made applicable to the case of the petitioner as the award has already been made prior to coming into force of the said Act.;