RAJESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Writ Petitions No. 163/2002 and 4126/2000, Notification of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 dated 18.8.2000 published in Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 18th August, 2000 has been challenged.

(2.) THIS Notification has come as a result of orders passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 637/97 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 639/97 which arose out of Writ Petition No. 2959/96 a public interest litigation filed by Union of India.

(3.) AN ad -interim ex -parte order was passed by learned Single Judge on 13.9.1996. On application being made by several lease - holders to be impleaded as party in the said writ petition and applications under Article 226(3) for vacating/modifying/clarifying interim order passed on 13.9.1996, the learned Single Judge made a detailed order on 11.10.1996 allowing all the applications for becoming parties and clarifying the interim order dated 13.3.1996. The operative part of the order dated 11.10.1996 reads as under: With the aforesaid circumstances, I hereby make the ad interim mandamus dated 13.9.1996 absolute with a clarification that the newly added respondents shall be allowed to operate their mines subject to the terms and conditions stipulated under thier lease deed without contravening any provisions of Act No. 67 of 1957 as well as without contravening any provisions of Rules of 1986 mentioned in the preceding paragrphs of this order and if any one is found to have committed any contravention of any of the provisions mentioned above then the appropriate authorities are hereby directed to initiate criminal proceedings against such lease holders as envisaged under Section 21 of Act No. 67 of 1957 read with Sub -rule (3) of Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986. After going through the averments made in the writ petition and also after hearing news broadcast from Radio as well as after looking in to television broadcast from Jaipur indicating the seriousness of the controversy involved and also to avoid any catastrophic disaster to the public at large travelling by trains on these railway lines, I hereby direct the Director of Mines (Safety), Ajmer Region, Ajmer respondent No. 4 to probe into the matter after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the newly added respondents or any other respondent (s) who consider himself to be affected by the ad -interim mandamus, which is being made absolute today, to apprise the court about cause or causes affecting the safety of the railway lines and inform about remedial measures to be adopted to avoid catastrophic disasters leading to closs of human life. With these observations, the applications moved under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India are hereby disposed of finally. It is further made clear that the respondent No. 4 will submit his report on or before 12.12.1996 relating safety of railway lines running in the State of Rajasthan affected by mining operations brought to his notice by the petitioners. The newly added respondents are represented by their counsel. Some of the respondents are present, some of them are not present for whom their counsel gave undertaking that they will inform their clients by registered post within three days from today informing them to attend the camp office at Makrana of respondent No. 4 on 23.10.1996. Respondent No. 4 is directed to hold camp office at Makrana for purposes of probe. In abundant caution, it is made clear that if the respondent No. 4 comes to this conclusion that some of the newly added respondents are not present, a notice may be published in news paper which will be taken to be due service upon all of them. It is also made clear that the respondent No. 1 will manage a general notice to be published in two newspaper, namely, Rajasthan Patrika and Dainik Navjyoti in Hindi, having sufficient circulations in the area informing the public in general about the probe scheduled to be commenced on 23.10.1996 at his Makrana Camp office about the safety of railway lines affected by mining operations. Any public spirited person would be entitled to participate in the said probe. Put up this case on 16.12.1996. This led to filing of two special appeals No. 639/97 by Nathmal and 639/97 by Khalil Ahmed and Ors.