SUMIT KAWADIYA AND OTHER Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for assailing the action of the respondent Urban Improvement Trust (for short, 'UIT'), Udaipur and the Land Acquisition Officer, Udaipur, whereby the part of the lands owned by the petitioners adjoining the road connecting the Badi Road to Rani Road via Shilp Gram was acquired so as to widen the same from its existing width to 80 feet. The initial notification of acquisition under section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 02.09.2011. As per the said notification, the adjoining lands of 18 persons/entities including the petitioners herein, one Mrs. Savita and M/s Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. were sought to be acquired for public purpose of road widening. It appears that the objections were raised against the said acquisition and the persons interested for saving their lands managed to persuade the UIT to reduce the proposed width of the road from 80 feet to 60 feet. Internal communications were exchanged between the UIT and the Government of Rajasthan to this effect. The Land Acquisition Officer reportedly gave his opinion dated 29.10.2012 referring to the report under Section 5A of the Act and requested for issuance of notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring maximum of forest and Government lands and for reducing the width of the road from 80 feet to 60 feet. It appears that the influence of the persons interested in reduction of the width of the road was so strong and powerful that a draft notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was even prepared at the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, reducing the width of the land to 60 feet and indirectly benefitting the petitioners and their likes, who were to suffer the brunt of acquisition. It may be stated here that the said notification, on which the petitioners bank upon heavily, was not issued officially and never saw the light of the day. It may be further noted that admittedly, the petitioners never made any objection against the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department issued a letter to the Secretary, UIT to forward his opinion on the recommendations made in the report under Section 5A of Act of the Land Acquisition Officer, wherein, he had recommended reduction of the width of the land and for maximum acquisition of Forest Department lands and the Government lands so that the UIT could be saved from extra expenditure. However, these communications appear to have been finally ignored by the Government of Rajasthan, and a notification dated 08.11.2012 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, whereby the width of the road proposed in the original notification under Section 4 of the Act was retained as 80 feet. By this notification, parts of the lands owned by the petitioners and aforesaid M/s Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. And Mrs. Savita were brought under acquisition. The notification drawn on 08.11.2012 was published in the official gazette dated 19.11.2012. In furtherance of the said notification issued by the State Government, the Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT pasted the notification for taking possession of the acquired lands at the prominent places communicating the land owners to appear before him for assessment of compensation awardable in lieu of acquisition. These notices were issued and published on 14.01.2013. The petitioners have challenged this alleged deviation by the State Government while issuing the final acquisition notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act while ignoring the emphatic recommendations allegedly made by the UIT after considering the objections of all concerned to reduce the proposed width of the road from 80 feet to 60 feet. While the petitioner Kailash Chand Jain, approached this court by filing a writ petition on 02.02.2013 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was assailed therein, but during pendency of the writ petition, the final award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.01.2015, whereupon an application was moved by the counsel representing the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition and for impugning the final award as well. The said prayer for amendment was accepted and the petitioner Kailash Chand Jain was allowed to question the validity of the final notification as well. On the other hand, so far as the petitioner Sumit Kawadiya is concerned, the Writ Petition No.4862/2015 came to be filed by him only after issuance of the final award.

(2.) Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhavit Sharma, representing the petitioner Kailash Chand Jain, and Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned counsel representing the petitioner Sumit Kawadiya, vehemently and fervently urged that the UIT after receiving objections of the aggrieved persons, had taken a conscious and considered decision to reduce width of the proposed road from 80 feet to 60 feet. By this reduction, the petitioners' grievances against the impugned action of notification were duly addressed and thus, there was no occasion for the petitioners to raise any formal objection as their lands were saved from acquisition by this recommendation. However, the State Government, while issuing the final notification failed to consider this significant aspect of the matter and mechanically issued the notification under Section 6 of the Act blindly following the initial notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which stood diluted with the resolution adopted by the Trust in its meetings, whereby a conscious decision was taken to reduce the width of the road from the proposed 80 feet to 60 feet and also to acquire maximum of Government/Forest lands for that purpose. They urged that since the representations submitted by persons aggrieved had been explicitly accepted, no change in view was permissible thereafter and that too without intimating the petitioners. They further urged that the entire effort of the respondents to widen the road from its existing width to 80 feet is aimed at benefitting certain private hoteliers, whose properties are located down the line and that the proposed acquisition has no public purpose whatsoever. On these grounds, they urged that the final notification dated 08.11.2012 and the award dated 13.01.2015 are bad in the eye of law and deserve to be struck down. Learend counsel fervently implored the court to accept the writ petitions and strike down the impugned notification and award as being arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel representing the respondent UIT, Udaipur assisted by Mr. Pushpendra Singh Shekhawat, Land Acquisition Officer and Ms. Kusum Rao, learned counsel representing the respondent Urban Development and Housing Department, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They urged that the petitioners did not submit any objection against the initial acquisition notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and also, no such objection, if at all filed by the petitioners has been annexed with these writ petitions. They further urged that the internal communications exchanged inter se between the local bodies and Government authorities cannot give rise to an inference that any considered decision was taken at any level to reduce width of the proposed road from 80 feet to 60 feet. They further urged that ex facie there is no rational/reasoning behind the recommendations of the concerned officials of the Trust, who appear to have acted for protecting vested interests, while making a recommendation to the State Government to reduce the width of the road in question contrary to the initial notification, which was issued for meeting the absoultely essential requirement to widen the road connecting Shilp Gram, Udaipur, which is an institution of international repute. They rather urged that even 80 feet wide road at the questioned location would prove insufficient in the near future looking to the large number of local and international tourists flocking Shilp Gram. They further submitted that two of the other litigants, viz. M/s. Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Mrs. Savita, who were situated at par with the petitioners have taken a conscious decision to withdraw the challenge laid to the impugned notification in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4231/2013 and 10082/2013 which were disposed as not pressed of on 28.08.2018 and hence, these writ petitions should also be rejected.