Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) These five writ petitions questioning the land acquisition proceedings under the notifications dated 16.02.2006 and 17.05.2006 issued respectively under Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 read with Sec. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' the Act of 1894 hereafter) having similar facts and involving almost identical issues have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The petitioners have questioned in these writ petitions the legality of the disputed acquisition proceedings for non -compliance of the requirements of Part VII of the Act of 1894 when the acquisition is allegedly made for the purpose of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited ('RIICO'). The petitioners have also questioned the legality of the notification dated 17.05.2006 invoking the provisions of Sec. 17 and dispensing with enquiry under Sec. 5A of the Act; and have further assailed the order dated 28.06.2006 as passed by the Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting their objections to the said acquisition.
(2.) A brief reference to the facts relevant for the purpose of issues involved would suffice. On 16.02.2006, the respondent State Government issued the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act notifying that certain parcels of land as stated therein and situated at Village Ramsara, Tehsil and District Churu were to be acquired in favour of RIICO, a registered government company under Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956' hereafter) for public purpose namely, for development and expansion of industrial area. It was, of course, stated in the said notification that the land was proposed to be acquired for the company at the costs of the company, and this notification was issued in supersession of earlier notification issued for the same purpose on 24.10.2005. Opening part of the said notification dated 16.02.2006, reads as under: -
(3.) Objections were invited under the said notification within 30 days of its publication. The persons likely to have interest in the land sought to be acquired, including the petitioners, were also issued individual notices to submit their objections, if any. The petitioners did submit their objections to the proposed acquisition, substance of which had been that they were residing for the last 40 years by constructing pucca houses on the land in question; that they were not having any other land or residence and agriculture; that the Collector concerned had already sent proposal for expansion of municipal limits encompassing the land in question too and such proposal was pending with the government; that on its northern and western sides, the land in question was surrounded by thickly populated area and, if acquired for the industrial purpose, residential development shall be adversely affected; that the acquisition would be violative of the notification dated 12.09.2003 requiring that the industrial area should not be put up within the periphery of 1.5 kms. from the outer limits of any village population, that the land in question was situated just 100 feet from the centre of the road connecting the revenue villages Ramsara, Uthmalia and others with Churu Township; that alternative and was available including about 1100 bighas of government land that could be utilised for the purpose.;