JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition along with the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule A are pending since 1994 wherein acquisition proceedings of disputed land of villages Sukher, Sapetia, Amberi, Bedala & Brahmano ka Guda have been challenged. Since these writ petitions involves common grievance and raise a common question of law & fact, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) BY this writ petition,the petitioner seeks to quash entire proceedings being taken by the respondents No. 1 & 3 for acquisition of the land in dispute. It has been prayed that the notification issued u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration u/s 6 and notice u/s 9 of the said Act may also be quashed and the respondents be restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute for estab- lishment of industrial area. While issuing notice, this court directed in all the writ petitions that the petitioners will not be dispossessed from the land if the same is in their possession. For convenient disposal of these cases, the facts of S. B. C. W. Petition No. 2902/94 are being taken into consideration. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these matters as alleged by the petitioner are that agricultural land bearing Araji No. 11, 118, 125, 127, 137,141, 143, 182, 217, 257, 258, 272, to 274, 279, 281, 283, 288, 289, 292, 293, 295, 298, 299, 303, 308 and 310 in all measuring 4. 1700 Hactears situated at Brahmano Ka Guda, Tehsil Girwa, Distt. Udaipur belonging to the petitioner is partly adacent to abadi area of Brahmano Ka Guda, Udaipur and included in the Green Belt Area of Udaipur. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 issued a notification u/sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act) on 17. 3. 93 (Anx. 3) and was published in Rajasthan Patrika and Pratahkal Dt. 5. 4. 93 to the effect that the land in question mentioned therein are likely to be needed for the industrial development. The noti- fication was also published in the Gazette Notification dt. 17. 3. 1993. It is also alleged that the petitioner and like others after having come to know regarding issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act submitted detailed objections under Section 5a of the Act on 16. 4. 93 (Anx. 5) inter-alia stating that the land in question cannot be acquired as it is situated in the Green Belt Area and within the statutory limit under the Rajas- than Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1959) and that the purpose of acquisition i. e. for establishment of industrial area would not be proper as the industrial area would spread pollution and several other objections were raised. It is also alleged that after submission of the said objection no enquiry as has been contemplated u/s. 5 A was conducted by the respondent no. 3 nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the objectors and to produce evidence the objection petition was rejected by the respondent no. 3 without application of mind on 1. 3. 1994 (Anx. 6 ). It is further alleged that the declaration u/s. 6 was issued on 31. 3. 94/4. 4. 94 which was published in 'pratahkal' vide Anx. 7. It is further alleged that the petitioner applied for a copy of report u/s 5a of the Act but the same was refused by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner has further alleged that initially total 196. 505 hectare land was to be acquired as per the notification u/s 4 of the Act but in the notice u/s 6 of the Act only 151. 345 hectares of land was included in the said declaration excluding several lands similarly situated of other owners. List of released lands (Anx. 8) has also been filed. The petitioner has also alleged that the respondent no. 3 is going to issue notices u/s 9 (1) read with Section 17 of the Act and they are prepared to take the possession of the disputed land by calling upon the land owners to submit claims with respect to compensation and title. The petitioner has also filed one notice to file claim dt. 15. 5. 94 (Anx. 9) Being aggrieved with the acquisition of the land in dispute, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. In pursuance to the notice respondents filed replies denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners. State has filed documents Anx. R-1 to R-7 along with the reply and the RICO has filed documents R-2/1 to 2/10. The respondent no. 1 has stated that though for a short period villages viz. Amberi Sapatiya Sukher, Bedla and Brahmano Ka Guda were of course included in the Municipal area but at present they are not part of Municipal Council Udaipur. It has been stated that the notice u/s 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette as also in two local news papers and further the same was notified at the convenient places in the locality. It has also been stated individual service of the notice u/s 4 (1) is not necessary as the only requirement is the publication. It has been further stated that there is no prohibition for establishment of industrial area within a radius of 5 Kms. and that the proposals for setting up of an industrial area was obayed by the Town Planing Department. It has been further pleaded that the petitioners have deliberately made a misstatement of fact that no agreement has been arrived at between RIICO and the State Government where as there was an agreement R-2/3 and R-2/4 between the corporation and the Government for providing of land which is still in force. The respondents have further stated that the petitioners were given full opportunity to raise objection but the basis and contents of all the objections were unreasonable they were rightly rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer who prepared a report. It has also been stated that the matter was examined under the supervision of the District Collector and a survey was conducted by dividing the entire area into three zones namely A,b & C zones, wherein it was found that in zone C over some parcels of land units/ factories have already been established and residential houses were also constructed, therefore in public interest those portions of zone C have been left out of acquisition and remaining part of zone C has been ordered to be acquired. The respondents have also placed the Survey Report (Ex. R-2/3) and Minutes of meeting dt. 12. 8. 92 (Ex. R-2/5) on record. It has been stated that the industrial unit will be allowed to be established only after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the various departments concerned with pollution and environment. It has also been stated that the land in question is agri- cultural land and the same is not situated in green belt area of Udaipur as no master plan has finally been approved by the State Government under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959. It has been further prayed that the writ petitions have no force and they may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the respondent no. 3 has not caused any public notice of the substance of the notification u/s 4 (1) at the conspicuous place in the locality and therefore, the entire proceedings taken thereafter are automatically vitiated. It has been contended that raising the objections u/s 5a of the Act is very valuable right of the land owners but the Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 3 has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners. It has also been contended that without hearing objection under sec. 5-A of the Act and without making enquiry report without discussing it was not sent rather objections were rejected. Counsel for petitioners have contended that the declaration u/s. 6 of the Act was not published within one year of the publication of notice u/s 4 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the setting up of industrial area on the land in dispute will create pollution and will be hazardous for the environment of Udaipur City. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have adopted policy of pick and choose while acquiring the land as lands of similarly situated persons have been left from the acquisition proceedings, which is hit by Article 14 and the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed being arbitrary and discriminatory. He has relied on Shiv Mandir Sita Ramji v/s Govt. of Delhi (1) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Muzafarnagar v/s Raten P. Mayal (2) UIT v/s Balveer Singh (3) and Damodar Lal Sharma v/s State (4)
(3.) MR. Singhvi learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He has contended that the petitioners have misstated the facts and have not come with clean hands. He has urged that there is no violation of Section 38 to 42 of th Act, as Chapter VII does not apply. He has contended that the objectors were given opportunity of hearing and entire proceedings were completed in accordance with law. He has also urged that the declaration u/s 4 (1) was published at conspicuous places in locality. He has further urged that the declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued in time. He prayed that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in state of Mysore vs. Abdul Razak Sahib (5) The collector (D. Mag) Allahabad vs. Raja Ram (6) stateof Haryana vs. Raghuvir Dayal (7) and Bajraot Kota (Dead) vs. Maharashtra (8) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and also the case law on the point. So far as the case law cited is concerned, the principle is not disputed by the counsel for the parties. It is settled that the Government can acquire land for public purpose. It is choice of the Government as to which land is to be acquired for public purpose so also for company purpose. A notice u/s 4 of the Act is required to be issued complying with its mandatory provisions and the substance of the notification is to be published in addition to official gazette in two news-papers in the concerned locality also, so that interested persons can file objection u/sec. 5a, which is a very valuable right and after making a regular enquiry the concerned collector will recommend the matter to the State along with his comments, though the ultimate decision will be of the Government regarding acquisition. Thereafter declaration must be issued within one year from the date of issuance of the notifi- cation u/s 4 of the Act. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the above case law as the legal position is settled but each case depends upon the facts of its own and I proceed to examine these identical matters wherein almost similar controversy has been raised. ;