SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court took suo motu cognizance on de-acquisition of the land of Prithviraj Nagar Scheme at Jaipur. The aforesaid cognizance was taken in the light of the fact that earlier the State Government took a decision to acquire vast chunk of land for planned development of the scheme named as Prithviraj Nagar Yojna. The acquisition of land was challenged before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court held acquisition to be invalid. In appeal before the Division Bench, the acquisition was held to be valid. The matter thereafter travelled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court where judgement of the Division Bench was affirmed. After aforesaid, a decision to de-acquire the land was taken by the State Government possibly to benefit the land grabbers and others. This was to give premium to law violators. It was otherwise taken to be in connivance with officers of the State Government.

(2.) The larger question of public interest was formulated as to whether it is a bona fide decision of the State Government to de-acquire the land or to give benefits to the land grabbers. It was found that possession of large chunk of land had already taken, thus in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay & Ors. Vs. Godrej and Boyce reported in (1988) 1 SCC 50, provisions of Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act was not available. The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in many other cases. This Court thereafter passed restrained order on constructions on 09.04.2003 followed by another restrained order. On 07.08.2008, a clarificatory order was passed holding that the restrained order is against building activities and does not restrain the Jaipur Development Authority (for short ?the J.D.A.?) to take necessary steps to develop the area. Accordingly, vide order dated 09.02.2009, the J.D.A. was directed to come out with plan for development of area. Subsequently, further orders were passed calling upon the policy of the Government in regard to Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. This Court took serious view on constructions during the pendency of writ petition and restrained order therein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State informed the Court that onwards electricity and water connections would not be released to those who are raising construction in violation of the interim order of this Court. The order to this effect has been issued.