Case Note & Summary
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land situated at Dhani Poonchla Wali, Village and Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar, for extension and development of the industrial area of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO). The lead petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5786/1995, was filed by Jugal Kishore, who claimed to be khatedar and occupier of 0.51 hectare comprised in Khasra No.364/4. According to the petitioner, although revenue records described the land as Banjar (barren), it had long been used for residential purposes with permanent houses and out-houses. A Tehsildar report dated 25.01.1993 acknowledged the residential character of the land. The State Government issued a notification on 09.11.1993 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing acquisition of approximately 21.50 hectares for RIICO at its expense. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5A, contending that his land was residential Abadi, that alternative Banjar and Barani lands were available, and that no necessity existed to acquire residential properties. The Land Acquisition Officer recommended release of certain parcels but retained the petitioner's land without adequate reasons. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 19.06.1995. The petitioner also alleged that between the existing industrial area and his land lay Khasra Nos.362, 364/1 and 365 comprising pasture land, cremation ground and a well, none of which were acquired. He contended that the authorities selected isolated residential pockets arbitrarily, without technical, planning or environmental study, and that an electricity transmission line passed through adjoining khasras. The petitioner further argued that since the notification stated acquisition was for RIICO and at its expense, compliance with Part VII of the Act was mandatory. The respondents, in their reply, did not dispute the land details or issuance of notifications but maintained that RIICO is a government company and acquisition for industrial area is a public purpose, making Part VII inapplicable. They claimed that objections were duly considered and found meritless, and that the land was a contiguous extension of the existing industrial area. Procedurally, the writ petitions were earlier dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 02.08.2006 and 05.01.2007 solely on the ground that an award dated 20.06.1997 was passed during pendency. The petitioners filed D.B. Special Appeals (No. 1252/2006, 1253/2006 and 616/2008), and the Division Bench passed interim orders on 21.11.2006 directing that petitioners not be dispossessed if residential houses existed. The provided text ends before the final reasoning and operative directions of the present judgment; therefore, the court's analysis on merits and the final decision are not extractable from the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Section 4 Notification - Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioners challenged notification dated 09.11.1993 proposing acquisition of 21.50 hectares for RIICO industrial expansion, alleging it was issued without proper survey and despite residential character of land - The court examined legality, validity and propriety of the notification (Paras 1,3-5,11).
B) Land Acquisition - Section 5A Objections - Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioners filed objections asserting land is residential and alternative Banjar/Barani lands available; Land Acquisition Officer recommended release of some parcels but retained petitioner's land without cogent reasons - Respondents claimed objections were duly considered and found meritless (Paras 6-7,15).
C) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose and Part VII Compliance - Part VII, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Notifications disclosed acquisition 'for RIICO and at its expense'; petitioners argued compliance with Part VII mandatory; respondents contended RIICO is government company and acquisition for industrial area is public purpose, Part VII inapplicable (Paras 12,14).
D) Land Acquisition - Arbitrary Selection of Land - Sections 4 and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioners alleged isolated residential pockets selected while leaving intervening pasture, cremation ground and well; alternative cheaper lands available; electricity line passing through; no environmental/planning study - Respondents denied arbitrariness and claimed contiguous extension (Paras 9-11,14,16).
E) Procedural History - Earlier Dismissal and Division Bench Appeals - Writ petitions earlier dismissed on 02.08.2006 and 05.01.2007 solely on ground of award dated 20.06.1997; petitioners preferred D.B. Special Appeals with interim orders dated 21.11.2006 not to dispossess if residential houses exist; ultimately disposed of (Para 17).
Issue of Consideration
Validity of notification dated 09.11.1993 under Section 4 and declaration dated 19.06.1995 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; whether acquisition for RIICO required compliance with Part VII; whether objections under Section 5A were properly considered; whether selection of residential Abadi land was arbitrary.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in provided excerpt; final operative direction not included in available text.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 4
- Section 5A
- Section 6
- Part VII
- public purpose
- residential abadi
- objections
- arbitrary selection
- government company
- RIICO
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (08) 39
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5786/1995 (with connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 257/1996 and 258/1996)
Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Harshit Bansal, Mr. Virendra Lodha, Mr. Ankit Rathore, Ms. Ritika Naruka, Mr. Sachin Rathore
Jugal Kishore son of Girdhari Lal (in CWP 5786/1995); Amar Singh, Ramu (deceased through legal heirs: Dadki, Gokul Chand Yadav, Mahaveer Yadav, Babu Lal Yadav, Pappu Yadav, Mainpal Yadav), Bihari (in CWP 257/1996); Banwari (deceased through legal heir: Kailash Chand), Harchand (deceased through legal heirs: Liladhar, Mohan Lal, Balvir), Harchand alias? (deceased through legal heirs: Radhey Shyam, Madan Lal, Prabhu Dayal, Satvir), Banshi, Prahlad, Jhabar (deceased through legal heirs: Rohitashwa, Jaspal Singh, Mahipal), Dayal Chand, Sher Singh (in CWP 258/1996)
The State of Rajasthan; Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.), Neemkathana; Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (RIICO)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 challenging land acquisition notifications for RIICO industrial area expansion
Remedy Sought
Quashing of notification dated 09.11.1993 under Section 4 and declaration dated 19.06.1995 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 insofar as they relate to petitioners' land, and restraining respondents from proceeding with acquisition
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that their residential Abadi land was arbitrarily selected for acquisition without proper consideration of objections, despite availability of alternative lands, and without compliance with Part VII of the Act
Previous Decisions
Writ petitions earlier dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 02.08.2006 and 05.01.2007 solely on ground that award dated 20.06.1997 was passed during pendency; D.B. Special Appeals filed (No. 1252/2006, 1253/2006, 616/2008); interim orders dated 21.11.2006 directed no dispossession if residential houses exist; ultimately disposed of (further details not provided)
Issues
Whether notification dated 09.11.1993 under Section 4 and declaration dated 19.06.1995 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are legal and valid.
Whether acquisition for RIICO, a government company, required compliance with Part VII of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether objections under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were properly considered and reasons given for retaining petitioner's land.
Whether selection of residential Abadi land was arbitrary given availability of alternative Banjar/Barani lands and presence of intervening utility lands.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their land was residential Abadi though recorded as Banjar; Tehsildar report acknowledged residential character; objections under Section 5A recommended release of some parcels but petitioner's land retained without reason; existing industrial area on one side of highway, petitioner's land beyond intervening pasture, cremation ground, well; no acquisition of intervening lands; alternative Banjar/Barani lands available cheaper; electricity line passing through; no technical/planning/environmental study; acquisition for RIICO at its expense triggers Part VII but not followed.
Respondents argued that RIICO is a government company; acquisition for industrial area is public purpose; Part VII inapplicable; survey conducted; land contiguous extension; objections considered and found devoid of merit; declaration duly published; deny mala fides, colourable exercise, non-application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned in provided excerpt; no reasoning or final holding is included in the available text.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners in the above writ petitions have questioned the legality, validity and propriety of notification dated 09.11.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ... and declaration dated 19.06.1995 issued under Section 6 thereof, whereby the respondents have sought to acquire the petitioners' land situated at Dhani Poonchla Wali, Village and Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar for extension and development of the industrial area of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited.
According to the petitioner, although the revenue record describes the land as Banjar (barren land), the land has long been treated as Abadi and continuously being used for residential purposes. Permanent residential houses, out-houses and other constructions have existed over the land for several years.
It has thus been contended that the respondents have sought to acquire isolated residential pockets situated beyond the intervening lands while leaving the intervening public utility lands untouched. According to the petitioner, such acquisition neither results in a planned extension of the industrial area, nor bears any rational nexus with the proposed object of industrial expansion.
The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner's land forms part of Khasra No.364/4 measuring 0.51 hectare. They also do not dispute the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894.
As a matter of fact, it would be relevant to refer that earlier all the above writ petitions came to be dismissed vide orders dated 02.08.2006 and 05.01.2007 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, solely on the ground that alleged award dated 20.06.1997 was passed during the pendency of the writ petition.
Procedural History
Preliminary survey directed by SDO; Tehsildar report dated 25.01.1993 acknowledging residential character. Section 4 notification issued on 09.11.1993. Petitioners filed objections under Section 5A; Land Acquisition Officer made recommendations but retained petitioner's land. Section 6 declaration issued on 19.06.1995. Award dated 20.06.1997 allegedly passed during pendency of writ petitions. Writ petitions earlier dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 02.08.2006 and 05.01.2007 solely on ground of award. Petitioners preferred D.B. Special Appeals No. 1252/2006, 1253/2006 and 616/2008; Division Bench passed interim orders dated 21.11.2006 directing no dispossession if residential houses exist. Ultimately, appeals disposed of; current common judgment pronounced on 12.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 5A, Section 6, Part VII
