Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the acquisition of land in Neemkathana, Sikar, which was proposed for the expansion of a RIICO industrial area, holding that the authorities failed to properly consider the landowners’ objections before acquiring their land.
Justice Anand Sharma allowed the petitions filed by Jugal Kishore and other landowners, setting aside the 1993 acquisition notification and 1995 declaration covering their lands measuring 0.51 hectare each. The Court also held that the acquisition had lapsed as the authorities failed to make a valid award determining compensation within the prescribed period.
In 1993, the State Government initiated acquisition of around 21.50 hectares of private land for the expansion of the RIICO industrial area. The landowners challenged the move, pointing out that their properties had residential houses and formed part of the local Abadi, while nearby Banjar and Barani land was also available as an alternative for the proposed development.
A government-conducted survey also confirmed that a significant portion of the land was occupied by residential houses. Despite this finding, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the landowners’ objections without adequately explaining the necessity of acquiring the residential properties or why the available alternative land was not considered.
The High Court observed that the Section 5A hearing under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a crucial statutory safeguard for landowners, providing them their “only statutory opportunity” to raise objections before their property is compulsorily acquired. The Court stressed that such a hearing must be meaningful and substantive, and cannot be treated as a mere “empty ritual.”
The Court also stressed the need for authorities to give proper reasons for decisions affecting people’s property rights, observing that “reasons constitute the soul of every administrative decision affecting valuable civil rights.”
The acquisition also faced a problem regarding compensation. The State relied on an award dated June 20, 1997, but the Court found that it did not determine compensation for the petitioners’ land. It held that merely having a document described as an “award” was not enough; compensation for the particular land had to be legally determined.
The State argued that an interim court order had prevented the authorities from completing the acquisition. The Court noted that the interim protection ended after the writ petitions were dismissed in 2006 and 2007. Thereafter, no valid award determining compensation for the petitioners’ land was made.
The Court consequently held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11A of the 1894 Act.
The Court also rejected the State’s argument that other landowners had accepted compensation and the industrial area was already developed. It held that “acceptance of compensation” by others cannot make an otherwise unlawful acquisition valid.
The Court ultimately quashed the acquisition notifications and restrained the authorities from taking any further steps to acquire the properties.