- (1.) This case is a paradigm example of the clash between private interest and public interest. Wanting to tenaciously hold onto their property, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings which were initiated by the State for the construction of a 200 ft. wide road connecting the Jaipur Airport to the Jawahar Circle at Jaipur.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be khatedars of Khasra Nos. 299 and 309 in village Chenpura, and of Khasra Nos. 699, 684/1382, 502 and 504 in village Sawai Gaitor. These Khasras are situated near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. They further claim that they are in cultivatory possession of the said land. According to the petitioners, on 6-12-2002 the officers of the Jaipur Development Authority ('the JDA' for short) entered into the petitioners' land, demolished part of the boundary wall and started levelling the land. Therefore, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1807/2003, wherein they challenged the illegal trespass by the respondents upon their land. The petitioners further claim that their land was never acquired as no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) was ever published. In fact, the procedure under the Act was never followed. According to them, they came to know about the alleged acquisition proceeding from the reply filed by the JDA in the aforementioned writ petition. The petitioners further state that suddenly on 30-9-2004, they were served with a notice under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act, in respect of Khasra Nos. 699, 684/1383, 504 and 503. According to the petitioners, Khasra No. 684/1383 does not belong to them. Thus, the mention of Khasra No. 684/1383 in the notice is meaningless. According to the petitioners, the acquisition is being made for constructing a 200 ft. wide road connecting the Jaipur Airport to the Jawahar Circle. However, in order to give benefit to certain influential persons, in order to avoid the use of land, which already belongs to JDA, the road has been given a certain turn and is being constructed over the land belonging to the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the entire acquisition proceeding is in violation of provisions of the Act. Lastly the acquisition proceedings have been carried out in a malafide manner with an ulterior motive to benefit influential persons. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. N.K.Maloo, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has raised a plethora of contentions before this Court: firstly, around the land of petitioners, sufficient land which belongs to JDA already exists. Moreover, sufficient land, which belongs to New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, also exists. In fact, certain officers of JDA have constructed their houses in the land belonging to the Samiti. In case, the road needs to be constructed, it can be constructed either through the land which belongs to JDA, or through the land which belongs to the Samiti. But in order to favour its officers, and in order to give benefit to the members of the Samiti, the JDA has purposefully and intentionally turned the road and has taken the road through the land belonging to the petitioners. Secondly, according to the map prepared by the JDA while all other roads joining the Jawahar Circle have been constructed as straight roads, the road under dispute has intentionally been turned so as to pass through the land of the petitioners. Thirdly, two different notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Act. The notification dated 29-9-2003 dealt with Khasra Nos. 699, 504, 505 and 684/1382; the notification dated 7-10-2004 dealt with Khasra Nos. 299 and 309. However, the petitioners were unaware of these notifications. Fourthly, although a notification under Section 6 of the Act with regard to notification dated 29-9-2003, dealing with Khasra Nos. 699, 504, 504 and 684/1382 was published, no notification under Section 6 of the Act with regard to notification dated 7-10-2004 has been published so far. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua Khasra Nos. 299 and 309 have lapsed. Fifthly, the notification under Section 6 read with 17(4) of the Act was published on 25-8-2004. But, before the emergent powers, granted under Section 17(4), could be invoked some cogent reasons have to be stated for invoking the emergent powers. However, in the notification dated 25-8-2004 no such reason has been spelt out. Therefore, the emergent powers have been invoked in an arbitrary manner. Hence, the notification dated 25-8-2004 is unsustainable. Sixthly, so far no notification under Sections 6 read with 17(4) of the Act, has been issued with regard to the notification dated 7-10- 2004. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding qua Khasra Nos. 299 and 309 stands lapsed. Lastly, although no notification with regard to Khasra Nos. 684/1382 has been issued, yet the same is being acquired by the JDA. Therefore, the trespass by the JDA in Khasra No. 684/1382 is absolutely unfair, unjust and unreasonable. Thus, the entire acquisition proceeding is in violation of constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.;