VIMAL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquisition of the agricultural land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.106 measuring 1.10 hectare at Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for seeking directions from this Court for quashing and setting aside the notification dtd. 27/05/2005 issued under Sec. 5 of the Act of 1894 as well as declaration dtd. 19/05/2006 under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894.

(2.) Facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased the above referred land in revenue village Vimalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur measuring 4 Bigha 2 Biswa (1.10 hectare) on 17/02/2003 by way of registered sale deed. On 27/05/2005, the respondent-State issued a notification under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of the said land for the purpose of expansion of Sitapura Industrial Area to be developed by respondent no.2-RIICO. The total land to be acquired was 199.75 acres. On 16/06/2005, the petitioner filed objections under Sec. 5A of the Act of 1894 stating that the land in question of the petitioner is an agricultural land having old construction as well as trees and plants are existing on the same and if the land in question is left out, no prejudice will be caused. The petitioner also cited one Circular of the respondent-department dtd. 06/04/1998 whereby it was specified that the Government should consider that unnecessary land acquisition activities should not be initiated upon Abadi, irrigated, cultivated lands. The petitioner further submitted in objections to the notification under Sec. 5- A that at least 337 industrial plots are lying vacant in Sitapura Industrial Area. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the respondent-RIICO consider the objections and prepared their report and sent recommendations to the Government vide order dtd. 25/01/2006 dealing with the objections of the petitioner and specifically holding that the land in question is situated in mid of the project and therefore, it is not suggested to leave the land qua the acquisition proceedings as the same will prejudice the planned development. It was pointed out in the report that the plantation in question is new but the boundary wall is old and it was suggested that appropriate decision may be taken at the end of the Government.

(3.) After consideration of report of the Committee, the acquisition proceedings were carried out and out of 199.75 hectares of land, vide declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894 dtd. 19/05/2006, only 197.18 hectares of land excluding 2.57 hectares of land was declared to be acquired. The petitioner submitted that 2.57 hectares of land, as above, was left out on the similar grounds and therefore, the discrimination has been made with the petitioner by the Committee. On the ground of being discriminated and against the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, the present writ petition was filed on 03/06/2006.