RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. RAJASTHAN FASTERNERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 1/5/2006. That judgment disposed of five writ petitions which had challenged the acquisition of land at the behest of Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short 'RIICO'). RIICO and the State are in appeals, aggrieved by the common judgment of the Single Judge, inasmuch as it held that invocation of urgency clause under Sec. 17(4) (old) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), was unjustified. Appeals have also been preferred by some of the original writ-petitioners, who are aggrieved to the extent the judgment upheld the underlying public purpose, which was the reason for the issuance of the acquisition notification.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a notification was issued under Sec. 4 of the Act on 1/7/2005, proposing to acquire 101.30 hectares of agricultural land at Kukas. This land, according to the revenue records were owned by 198 khatedars. The State also invoked the urgency clause and sought to dispense with the requirement of hearing under Sec. 5A, by under Sec. 17(4) of the Act. The notification was challenged- as was the invocation of the urgency clause, by the writ-petitioners who contended that acquisition was not motivated by public purpose, and in no circumstance could the urgency clause be invoked. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order dtd. 1/5/2006 upheld the notification under Sec. 4, so far as it proposed acquisition of the entire tract of 101.30 hectares of land. The learned Single Judge however was of the opinion- (having regard to the state of the record), that no objective material could justify exclusion of hearing under Sec. 5A. The impugned judgment to a large extent has analysed factually that repeated requests for acquisition were made previously and no sense of urgency was felt and that the invocation of the urgency clause, in these circumstances, (when the normal recourse to acquisition could have been resorted to by granting hearing to the persons interested who were likely to be affected), was unjustified. The record would show that several appeals were preferred- some at the behest of RIICO and the State and others at the behest of the persons interested i.e. those likely to be affected, which included the khatedars. Apparently of the 198 khatedars who were affected by the acquisition, only six approached the Court, which led to the impugned judgment. Others had accepted the acquisition and also the compensation offered.

(3.) The Single Judge during the interregnum- before the judgment had apparently dismissed a writ petition of one of the six Khatedars; that order became final. It is also a matter of record that of the five khatedars before the Court, either as respondents or as appellants, three accepted compensation and withdrew their challenge as well as the appeals. Thus, now only two parties (who contend that they are persons interested and likely to be affected), are before the Court [M/s. Raj. Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ghisya (since deceased)].