KOTHARI, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner No. 1, Sawaika Property Private Limited, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in Calcutta and petitioner No. 2, Chairman of the Company, has challenged the land acquisition proceedings under the Rajasthan Urban Imprisonment Act, 1959 in respect of its land measuring 37038. 5 sq. mtrs equivalent to 14 Bigas and 16 Bishwas situated at village Madrampura, Tehsil Jaipur which is now as a matter of fact in the heart of capital city of Rajasthan and its area is adjoining the Civil Lines just behind Ministers' Bungalows.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner company is that the proceedings for acquisition of land in question was initiated by a notice under section 52 (2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1959") vide Annex. 1 dated 25. 6. 1975. By the said notice under section 52 (2) of the Act, the preamble of which read as "because the under noted land is desired to be acquired for improvement and purpose of development of Jaipur Town and extension of Civil Lines area for construction of building" and in the body of the said notice the description of the land in question was given. Another notice dated 23. 8. 1975 was issued by the same authority namely; Special Officer of Town Planning Department, Jaipur which was addressed to the petitioner's company at Calcutta address and the name was also purported to have been issued under section 52 (2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner company to show cause within 20 days as to why the said land in question be not acquired for the aforesaid purpose. According to the petitioner, the alleged purpose of acquisition in the said notice was shown to be slightly different than the one shown in the first notice Annex. 1 and now in Annex. 2, the purpose of acquisition was stated to be "improvement of the land in question or for extension of Civil Line and house building scheme in the Jaipur" the land was sought to be acquired. The petitioner company filed its objections in response to the said show cause notice vide Annex 3 dated 8. 9. 75 challenging the said acquisition and referring to certain family disputes between the brothers of the said family which owned the petitioner No. 1 company, the company stated that the company was contemplating to expand its business activities in Rajasthan and company applied for industrial licence and have also intention to open their branch office at Jaipur and for constructions of office building and residential quarters for the Directors and other senior executives, they would require the said land in question. Thereafter the petitioner company constantly made representations before different authorities of the State Government against the said acquisition proceedings and vide Annex. 4 dated 20. 3. 76 the petitioner company came up with a proposal to set up a three star hotel on the said land in question by paying the necessary conversion charges which was also favourably recommended by the Director of Tourism. The petitioner company also contends that vide Annex 7 dated 8. 2. 1982 they have tied up with the Welcome Group for setting up of 5-Star hotel and therefore the competent authority had recommended its case for exemption from the Urban Ceiling Law. While this was going on, by the impugned notice issued under section 52 (5) of the Act on 18. 2. 1984, the Land Acquisition Officer asked the petitioner company to hand over the possession of the land in question within 30 days failing which forcible possession would be taken within the power under section 52 (6) of the Act. By a notification in the Official Gazette published on 8. 2. 1984 issued under section 52 (1) of the Act, the final declaration was notified by the State Government under the orders of the Governor for acquisition of the land in question in Khasra No. 383 of village Madrampura admeasuring 14 bighas 16 Bishwas for the purposes of improvement or urban development in the city as stated in the said notification. At this point of time, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the said acquisition proceedings where, it is stated by the petitioner company that an injunction order was also issued by the Calcutta High Court in its favour. However upon the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government against such injunction order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289 that Calcutta High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain such writ petition at the instance of the petitioner company for the acquisition of land in Jaipur. Thereafter the petitioner company filed a writ petition in Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench being Writ Petition No. 1507/87 which was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition on 10. 3. 89. Just prior to that, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 5. 7. 89 which after remaining pending for all these years, could be finally heard, over period of three days, in the second week of January, 2006 and it is being disposed of by this judgment. Shri R. K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged before this Court that the land acquisition in question is bad in law and is illegal for a variety of reasons, the important of them being (i) that there was no purpose much less a genuine public purpose behind the acquisition of land in question. (ii) that due process of law as per the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed and therefore the land acquisition in question has to fail, (iii) that there was gross delay on the part of the State Government in undertaking and completing the land acquisition proceedings in question as the proceedings which were started on 25. 6. 1975 vide notice under section 52 (2) of the Act and the final declaration in respect of the same was issued only on 8. 2. 1984 vide Annex 12 and therefore after about lapse of 9 years since the Government had set over the matter, the delay is fatal and therefore all the proceedings deserves to be quashed, (iv) that since after extending the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the State of Rajasthan w. e. f. 27. 9. 1984, sine the award was not passed within a period of two years in the present case, the proceedings were rendered void and deserves to be quashed on that ground.
(3.) THIS last argument was also emphasised by Shri G. L. Pareek, learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant M/s. Ashirwad Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. who had applied to intervene in the matter on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding dt. 14. 10. 1996 between the petitioner company and the applicant company to develop the land in question and to pursue the litigation and also to make efforts for de-acquisition for the land in question. However, it appears that these two parties also fell apart during the course of time as the petitioner company claimed that the applicant company was to complete the purported exercise before 31. 3. 1997 and since it had failed to do so, the period of alleged Memorandum of Understanding lapsed and therefore the petitioner company opposed the application seeking intervention in the present writ petition filed by the aid applicant company. Shri G. L. Pareek fairly submitted that the inter se dispute between the parties cannot be made subject matter of this writ petition but however since it had interest in the land in question and the present dispute, he should be allowed to make submissions in support of the petitioner company against the land acquisition in question which he was allowed. Therefore, the Court without going into inter se dispute between the parties, only allowed Shri G. L. Pareek to make submissions to the extent of challenge to the land acquisition in question and in this context, the made the submissions on the last point as enumerated above on the strength of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bishwambar Dayal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1991 (1) WLC 686 by which judgment section 60 (A) (3) of the UIT Act was found to be repugnant to the provisions of section 11-A of the Central Land Acquisition act, 1894. However the State Government after the pronouncement of the said judgment on 23. 1. 89 enacted an amendment and validation law in the form of Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990 which received the assent of President and thus, the defect pointed out by the Division Bench was cured and thereafter the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap vs. State of Rajasthan, (1996 (3) SCC 1) which answered completely the contentions raised by the petitioner to the extent of applicability of Central Land Acquisition Act to the State of Rajasthan which would be dealt with hereinafter. Up against the said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bharat Vyas learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Jaipur Development Authority which stepped into the shoes of Urban Improvement Trust after coming into force of J. D. A. Act 1980 and who also happens to be Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan and therefore, his arguments were adopted by Shri B. L. Awasthi, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan also, vehemently urged before the Court, taking the Court through the various case laws, that the writ petitioner filed by the petitioner company is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. He submitted that (i) the land acquisition proceedings in questions are perfectly valid and in accordance with law, (ii) that there was no delay on the part of the State Government in the land acquisition proceedings in question and he contended that on the other hand, the petitioner itself was guilty in delaying those proceedings from 1975 to 1984 by making various representations objecting to the land acquisition proceedings thereby tremendously increasing the costs of development of the said land in question now (iii) that there was genuine and valid public purpose behind acquisition of the land in question and (iv) that thee was no malafides, either the malice-in-fact or malice-in-law (v) that the procedure prescribed in law was duly and punctually followed (vi) that Award having been passed in he matter and that being not under challenge in the present writ petition; therefore the petitioner has acquiensced in the matter and that against the said award the petitioner is already pursuing Reference application seeking enhancement of awarded compensation before the Reference Court thereby disentitling itself to any relief in the present writ petition and lastly (vii) that conduct of the petitioner company in dealing with the said land by entering into the aforesaid memorandum of understanding with a third party M/s. Ashirwad Real Estate, after issuance of the notice under section 52 (2) of the Act and after final declaration u/s. 52 (1) of the Act on 8. 2. 1984. This conduct of the petitioner company being illegal and contumacious, the petitioner's writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having given my careful though and consideration to the provisions of statute, arguments of the learned counsel and relevant case laws, I proceed to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner first. ;