DHANNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is a paradigm example of the clash between private interest and public interest. Wanting to tenaciously hold onto their property, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings which were initiated by the State for the construction of a 200 ft. wide road connecting the Jaipur Airport to the Jawahar Circle at Jaipur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be khatedars of Khasra Nos. 299 and 309 in village Chenpura, and of Khasra Nos. 699, 684/1382, 502 and 504 in village Sawai Gaitor. These Khasras are situated near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. They further claim that they are in cultivatory possession of the said land. According to the petitioners, on 6-12-2002 the officers of the Jaipur Development Authority ('the JDA' for short) entered into the petitioners' land, demolished part of the boundary wall and started levelling the land. Therefore, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1807/2003, wherein they challenged the illegal trespass by the respondents upon their land. The petitioners further claim that their land was never acquired as no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) was ever published. In fact, the procedure under the Act was never followed. According to them, they came to know about the alleged acquisition proceeding from the reply filed by the JDA in the aforementioned writ petition. The petitioners further state that suddenly on 30-9-2004, they were served with a notice under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act, in respect of Khasra Nos. 699, 684/1383, 504 and 503. According to the petitioners, Khasra No. 684/1383 does not belong to them. Thus, the mention of Khasra No. 684/1383 in the notice is meaningless. According to the petitioners, the acquisition is being made for constructing a 200 ft. wide road connecting the Jaipur Airport to the Jawahar Circle. However, in order to give benefit to certain influential persons, in order to avoid the use of land, which already belongs to JDA, the road has been given a certain turn and is being constructed over the land belonging to the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the entire acquisition proceeding is in violation of provisions of the Act. Lastly the acquisition proceedings have been carried out in a malafide manner with an ulterior motive to benefit influential persons. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. N.K.Maloo, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has raised a plethora of contentions before this Court: