G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ application challenging the acquisition of the petitioner's land Khasra Nos. 345, 346, 347, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355 and 356 measuring 5 Bighas and 19 Biswas and Khasra No. 389 measuring 3 Bighas and 7 Biswas situated in village Chak Sudarshanpura and Bhojpura respectively which was initially in the Khatedari of Dhanna son of Gangaram by caste Kumhar. Petitioner's case is that nursery has been established by the petitioner in the aforesaid land and it is one of the best nurseries in the whole of Rajasthan and plants from this nursery are sent not only in parts of Rajasthan but also in other cities of India. Under the Lalkothi Scheme at the instance of Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, land acquisition proceedings were taken and notifications were issued under secs. 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1953', in the Gazette on 11-5-61. Although several objections have been raised against the aforesaid acquisition but the principal point urged by Mr. Singh for the petitioner is based on discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT is alleged that an adjoining nursery to the petitioner's nursery, which is known as Anand Nursery, was acquired in addition to the petitioner's nursery by the said notification and for the same purposes of Lalkothi Scheme by the notification of U. I. T. Jaipur. Both the petitioners as well as Proprietor of Anand Nursery made representation against the acquisition on the ground that even in the master plan itself these lands have been earmarked for nurseries and orchards, dairies and after spending a huge amount and putting up trem-endus labour these nurseries have been built up. Both these representations were under consideration of the State Government. However the representation of Anand Nursery was accepted and an order for de-acquisition was passed in the following term : *** -------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ----------------- --------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- In this notification reproduced above, it is mentioned that in this nursery, fruits, vegetables and flowers and grapes are cultivated and it has been established at huge amount. Therefore, this nursery should be kept intact and be de-acquisitioned under sec. 48 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioner's Pratap Nursery has been adjudicated as one of the best nurseries which is very useful for all those purposes which have been mentioned in the de-acquisition order of Anand Nursery. He relies upon the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20-4-73 (Annexure B) produced in this Court, with the additional affidavit dated 20-2-79 and it is as under : *** Mr. Singh also invited my attention to the order-sheet of this Court dated 1. 5. 73 when late Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. P. Jain observed as under: " 1-5-73. Hon'ble Jain J. Mr. N. M. Kasliwal for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Tewari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. According to Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the only point that survives in this case for consideration of this Court is that the action of the State Government in acquiring the petitioner's land is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The basis of this contention is that the land in neighbourhood of the petitioner's land situated in the same village was also acquired by the State Government under the notification by which the petitioner's land was acquired, but on the ground that there is a nursery on the land in the neighbourhood known as 'anand Nursery', the land was released from acquisition by the State Government. The petitioner, according to Mr. Kasliwal, is similarly situated in as much as the petitioner's land is also covered by a nursery known as 'pratap Nursery' and it exists to from 1955, much before the 'anand Nursery' came into existence. The petitioner wants to move the State Government to reconsider the case in the light of the order passed with respect to the land covered by 'anand Nursery'. He prays for some time to move the State Government. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has no objection in this regard. I accordingly allow three months' time to the petitioner to move the State Government and to negotiate for obtaining the necessary relief in view of the facts urged by him in this Court. This case shall be listed for hearing on 22. 8. 73. " In pursuance of that the petitioner again made representation to the State Government. Mr. J. S. Rastogi learned Government Advocate placed before me the record of the State Government regarding the proceedings taken on that application and subsequent application. I find that on the earlier application of 1973 though reasons have not been given but it is mentioned in the file that the application of Pratap Nursery cannot be accepted. In para 82 it is mentioned that a writ petition has been filed and the Proprietor of Pratap Nursery has made representation for de-acquisition and the Court has given him opportunity to make representation. The representation, it is alleged, has been filed in the time allowed by the court and then ultimately it is written that views of the Government Advocate were required to be obtained but it appears that they have not been received. However, it is mentioned that on the report of the Secretary U. I. T. and the Secretary Town Planning, the application deserves to be rejected. Another application moved by the Proprietor of Pratap Nursery, the petitioner, again was dealt with as per the records placed before me by the Government Advocate, and it appears that Shri Gulab Singh Shaktawat the then Minister for State for Localself Government and Town Planning, was of the view that this Pratap Nursery should also be de-acquisitioned. In compliance of the directions issued by the then State Minister, a letter was addressed by Shri M. S. Jha, Asstt. Secretary to the Government on 16. 4. 77 and it was observed in that letter, that it will be of advantage to retain this Nursery, if possible though some portion of the land may be considered for being taken either by negotiation or acquisition to develop it as a park provided in the town plan of the area. Comments were required on it. The Secretary of U. I. T. in reply to it wrote that an amended master plan is being prepared by the Chief Town Planner and, there -fore, it would be possible to send comments only after that. All the above shows that the State Government at its various levels was seized of the matter from time to time and even now there is some correspondence left which has not been concluded so far. In view of the above facts and circumstances the crucial question which requires consideration is whether Anand Nursery and Pratap Nursery located in the Lal Kothi Scheme of the U. I. T. in Jaipur City being adjoining to each other and being utilised for the same purpose of nursery are having such identical similarity which warrants consideration of question whether there has been discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution between the two. Mr. Singh submits that his case is on a far better footing than that of Anand Nursery because whereas Anand Nursery mostly is used for roses and other flowers, petitioner's nursery is being maintained for various vegetables and fruits etc. which are used for human consumption.
(3.) DR. Tewari on the other hand contested this factual position also. Be that as it may, so far as the respondents are concerned, they cannot be allowed to travel beyond the report of the Land Acquisition Officer which corroborates Mr. Singh's contention so far as his positive case of Pratap Nursery is concerned. It has not been shown to me that the Land Acquisition Officer who gave this report was biased in favour of Pratap Nursery or in any manner he inspite of being a Government Officer deliberately gave a false report to oblige the petitioner. That being so the court can safely rely upon the version given by the Government Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) and assume that Pratap Nursery is a well developed Nursery where vegetables and fruits and other plants useful for human being, are being produced, and maintained in abundance. Dr. Tewari then submitted that Art. 14 has got no relevancy and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Naraindass vs. The Improvement Trust, Amritsar (l ). Relevant observations are as under : " Equal laws have to be applied to all persons in the same situation and there must be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. If a person has however failed to bring his case within sec. 56 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act then merely because some other party has erroneously succeeded in getting his land exempted ostensibly under that section that by itself would not clothe the former with a right to secure exemption for their lands. The rule of equality before the law or of the equal protection of the laws under Art. 14 cannot be invoked in such a case. " It was again observed : " The Trust is not bound to give reasons for holding as to why the entire land of the owners of orchards is necessary for executing the Scheme. There is no provision of the Act which imposes such an obligation on the Trust when coming to a decision under sec. 56. " (point conceded ). Sec. 56 of the Punjab Act which has been reproduced in para 6 of this judgment, makes provision for bringing it to the notice of State Government that on subsequent discovery the acquisition of that land is unnecessary for the execution of the scheme and on that the acquisition of that particular part can be abandoned. As I have been able to understand the observations of the Hon. Court, they are that if one mistake has been committed by the State Government then Art. 14 cannot be applied to compel the State Government to repeat the same mistake in the other one. I have simplified the conclusion in order to emphasise that the case of a party taking advantage of State Government's mistake in other case is one where constitutional protection of Art. 14 cannot be applied. ;