RAMAWATAR KANORIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated 23rd February, 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the stay application filed by the petitioners-appellants along-with the writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants canvassed that petitioners-appellants are the co-owners of the property and land situated at Khasra No. 330, Gram Badodiya, Station Road, Jaipur which measured approximately 11495 sq. yards. On 6.1.2011, the State Government issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquiring land in Gram Badodiya and village Hathroi for the Mansarovar-Chandpole corridor of the Jaipur Metro Project. Objections were filed by the petitioners-appellants under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 against the proposed acquisition as per the Notification dated 6.1.2011, however, the same were not decided. On 17.8.2011, the respondents issued an amendment to the original notification dated 6.1.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 11941/2011 in the name and style of Hotel Radhe Krishna challenging the notification dated 17.8.2011 to the extent of modifying the notification dated 6.1.2011. The Single Judge of this Court albeit granted the stay order, but later-on it was vacated on 3.11.2011, with the liberty to raise all possible objections against the Notification dated 17.8.2011. The petitioners-appellants filed the objections, but sans considering and deciding the objections, the respondents issued a Notification under Section 6 readwith Section 17 (1) & (4) of the Act of 1894 waiving off the mandatory requirement of considering and deciding the objections of the land holders under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Possession of the petitioners-appellants' land had been taken, but no compensation under Section 17(3A) has been paid to them. The petitioners-appellants filed the writ petition, but the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 23.2.2012 declined to interfere and arbitrarily dismissed the stay application.

(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that the Single Bench is justified in denying to grant the stay order. Metro line is such a project which cannot be brook any delay. The Division Bench of this Court in PIL Petition No. 17175/2010 has considered the matter. Detailed order has been passed rejecting the prayer for interim stay. In other writ petitions pending before the Single Bench, interim orders have been vacated. There has to be parity with respect to the grant of interim stay also. Thus, the Single Bench was justified in refusing to grant the interim stay. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the interlocutory order rendered by the Single Bench, which gainsaid to grant the stay order.