STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AVNISH KUMAR GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The intra-Court appeals have been preferred as against the order dated 10th January, 2003 passed by the single Bench of this Court. Respondents had filed writ petitions assailing the Notification dated 10-7-2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Notification dated 2-11-2002 invoking urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Act and dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.

(2.) The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State of Rajasthan at the request of Jaipur Development Authority for widening stretch of Bhawani Singh Road from Rambag Circle to Indira Circle in the city of Jaipur. Bhawani Singh Road is main artery of Jaipur, which runs from "Ajmer Road" in the West to "Jawahar Nagar Bye-pass" in the East of Jaipur. The stretch in dispute relates to the part of the road, which is only 60 ft. wide. Rest of the road in most of the places is 100 ft. wide and in some of the places 165 ft. wide. The Jaipur Development Authority felt that the stretch in question was creating traffic chaos and congestion and as such, decided to widen the road from 60 ft. to 100 ft. and requested the State Government to acquire 20 ft. land from both the sides of the road for which aforesaid Notifications were issued. Though the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was also questioned, but the Division Bench of this Court has held the Notification under Section 4 to be valid vide judgment dated 7th May, 2004 passed in Ram Chandra Kasliwal v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 576/2003 (D) arising out of writ petition No. 8191/2002) and Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Trust v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 689/2003 arising out of Writ Petition No. 8184/02). In the writ applications, notification invoking urgency clause and dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A was also questioned including the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act. Against the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 7th May, 2004, SLP No. 14479/2004 was preferred by Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Trust and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 6-8-2004.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the only question remains is as to the validity of Notification dated 2-11-2002 invoking urgency clause under Section 17(1) and dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The single Bench by the impugned order has quashed the Notification dated 2-11-2002 issued by the State Government invoking provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act. However, liberty was given to the State Government to hold inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The single Bench observed that it does not appear on the face of the notification that any relevant material was ever placed before the State Government. The State Government has not examined any material to come to the conclusion whether the provisions contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act were applicable or not. The proposed acquisition would mean the cutting of healthy trees on both sides of the road. There exists hospital also.At the same time, the single Bench has observed that it is no doubt true that free flow of traffic is the need of the day not only in Bhawani Singh Road but in entire Jaipur City, but at the same time aspect of noise and air pollution cannot be ignored. The children of educational institutions and patients of hospital cannot be exposed to such pollution. It was necessary for the State Government to adopt proper devices to prevent noise and air pollution but this aspect was not at all considered. Hence, notification dated 2-11-2002 invoking emergent provisions under Section 17 of the Act has been quashed. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government and the JDA have preferred the in-tra-Court appeals.