ALOK KOTAHWALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 25-7-2012 this court had required the respondents to file reply to the writ petition and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal [(2012) 2 SCC 25] and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 792] it was directed that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the property in issue till 6-8-2012. The stay order was thereafter extended from time to time and presently subsists. The Land Acquisition Officer was however allowed to take further proceedings in pursuance to the declaration of the State Government under Section 6 Gazetted on 5-7-2012.

(2.) REPLY to writ petition has been filed both by the State of Rajasthan as also the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (herein after 'the JMRC). An application (36161/14-8-12) has been filed by the petitioners and it has been submitted by Senior counsel Mr. Abhay Bhandari appearing with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava that earlier interim order dated 25-7-2012 be modified and the stay be confirmed in view of the ex facie illegality in acquisition proceedings in the context of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. (supra). It is submitted that this court should eschew the circumstance of illegal land acquisition proceeding being allowed to continue with the potential of an illegal award being passed which the respondent Land Acquisition Officer is seeking to do. Counsel submits that in the case of Pranita Powerloom Cooperative Society Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 12 SCC 652], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an obvious illegality attaches to acquisition proceedings, the petitioners challenging such proceedings should not be put through rigmarole of further proceedings thereunder.

(3.) RELIANCE is placed on Aircraft Employees' Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Government of Karnataka [(1996) 11 SCC 475] and Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 3 SCC 757] to contend that in a situation where an opportunity of hearing is lost for reasons attributable to the objecting party, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it cannot tantamount to denial of natural justice as warranted under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. Mr. Bapna, learned Advocate General further submits that any error in considering the objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act in not addressing the objections with requisite application of mind should not affect the acquisition proceeding adversely in view of the fact that the purpose of acquisition of land in issue is for JMRC which is a infrastructure project. He submits that this court should overlook the illegality as alleged in view of public project purpose of acquisition. RELIANCE is placed on para 8 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1997 SC 1236].