Susila Kankariya W/o Mahaveer Kankariya and Jaideep Kumbhat S/o Shri Dashrathmal and Gopal Das Lohiya S/o Kaanmal and Udit A. Mehta S/o Shri Akshay J. Mehta and Himadri Jain W/o Abhinandan D/o Umaid Raj Jain and Vimla Devi W/o Hukami Chand and Kirti Jain W/o Sidharath D/o Rajnish and Madan Singh S/o Tej Singh and Amrati Devi W/o Nemi Chand and Nirmal Chand Jain Huf S/o Sugan Chand Jain and Vikram Vishnoi S/o Ram Lal and Lalit Kishor S/o Jivan Singh and Roop Kanwar W/o Jiwan Singh and Jogsingh Panwar S/o Poonam Singh and Deepak Nyati S/o Shri Tulsi Das Nyati and Abida W/o Mohd. Sabir and Chandra Kumar S/o Lada Ram Ji and Naresh Vyas S/o Shri Shivratan Vyas and Murlidhar S/o Rochi Ram and Gautam S/o Shri Naina Ram and Baby W/o Dinesh and Vikram Vishnoi S/o Ram Lal and Sravani Devi W/o Shri Ram Lal V. State Of Rajasthan and Union Of India and National Highway Authority Of India and Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd.

CW/12292/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple petitioners challenging the compensation awarded for land acquisition under the Act of 2013, arguing that the method of calculating compensation was flawed and the definitions of urban and rural areas used were inappropriate. The petitioners contended that the entire area of the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) should not be considered urban for the purpose of calculating compensation, and that the distance from the nearest urban area was not correctly applied in determining the multiplying factor for compensation. The State Government defended its notifications and the method of compensation calculation, asserting that it was within its rights to define urban areas and apply the specified multiplying factors based on distance from these areas.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813635 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Susila Kankariya vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Jaideep Kumbhat vs. Union Of India, Gopal Das Lohiya vs. Union Of India, Udit A. Mehta vs. State Of Rajasthan, Smt Himadri Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, Vimla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, Kirti Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, Madan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, Amrati Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, Nirmal Chand Jain Huf vs. State of Rajasthan, Dhiraj Ambalal Patel vs. State of Gujarat, The Income Tax Officer vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Panjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra
• Laws Referred To: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, National Highways Act, 1956, Indian Stamp Act, 1899
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BENIWAL; MANISH VYAS; BHANU BOHRA; SANJEET PUROHIT; SUSHIL BISHNOI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP SWAMI
• Keywords: Compensation; Land Acquisition; Market value; Multiplying factor; Rural Area; Urban area
• Section: 26; 3A; 107; 30(2); 106; 26(2); 26(1); 3D

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5916/2021 Susila Kankariya W/o Mahaveer Kankariya, Aged About 63 Years, B/c Jain, R/o 28, Ajit Colony, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6), Secretariat-Jaipur. 2. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.d.m.)-Jodhpur, (Section-1 Dangiyawas, Keru Nagaur Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 3. The Project Director, Project Implement Unit, National Highway Authority Of India, House No. 148, Umaid Heritage Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Respondents connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12253/2021 Jaideep Kumbhat S/o Shri Dashrathmal, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o 6, Roop Rajat, Sarovar Amritnagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highways, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6), Secretariat-Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12282/2021 Gopal Das Lohiya S/o Kaanmal, Aged About 70 Years, 39-A, Nehru Park, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, (2 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6), Secretariat-Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12292/2021 Gopal Das Lohiya S/o Kaanmal, Aged About 70 Years, 39-A, Nehru Park, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6), Secretariat-Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5812/2021 Udit A. Mehta S/o Shri Akshay J. Mehta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 93, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur (Through Will Of Late Shri J.s. Mehta, R/o House No. 93, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group - 6), Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. , Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer - Sdo Luni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur. ----Respondents (3 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1466/2018 Smt Himadri Jain W/o Abhinandan D/o Umaid Raj Jain, Aged About 24 Years, 296 B, Sardarpura, First A Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1468/2018 Vimla Devi W/o Hukami Chand, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 201, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1470/2018 Kirti Jain W/o Sidharath D/o Rajnish, Aged About 41 Years, 1, Ahinsa Complex, Near Ambedkar Circle, Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan (4 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1473/2018 Madan Singh S/o Tej Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Plot No. 14-15, Behind Rainbow House, Paota B-2 Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretry, Department Of Idnustries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1475/2018 1. Amrati Devi W/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 201, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali. 2. Hemlata Karnawat W/o Rajesh,, Aged About 60 Years, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico Pali, District Pali. (5 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1476/2018 Amrati Devi W/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 66 Years, 201, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1477/2018 Jhamku Devi W/o Jugraj, Aged About 75 Years, 182, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1478/2018 Madhu Devi W/o Jeevan Ji, Aged About 53 Years, 201, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), (6 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1479/2018 Nirmal Chand Jain Huf S/o Sugan Chand Jain, Aged About 58 Years, Nirmal Deep, Plot No. 13, Paota B-2 Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1480/2018 Vivek Lodha S/o Nirmal Chand Lodha, Aged About 35 Years, Nirmal Deep, Plot No. 13, Paota B-2 Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents (7 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1481/2018 Madan Singh S/o Tej Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Plot No. 14-15, Behind Rainbow House, Paota B-2 Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1495/2018 Smt. Sangeeta Jain W/o Umaid Raj Jain, Aged About 55 Years, 296 B, Sardarpura, First A Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1498/2018 Nirmal Chand Jain S/o Sugan Chand Jain, Aged About 58 Years, Nirmal Deep, Plot No. 13, Paota B-2 Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan (8 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1501/2018 Rajul W/o Mool Chand, Aged About 32 Years, 182, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan And Ors., Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Ivestment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Throgh Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1506/2018 Vandana Karnawat W/o Rajnish Karnawat, Aged About 48 Years, 1, Ahinsa Complex, Near Ambedkar Circle, Pali Marwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1508/2018 Vivek Lodha S/o Nirmal Chand Lodha, Aged About 35 Years, (9 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Nirmal Deep, Plot No. 13, Paota B-2 Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1550/2018 Parbu S/o Kera, Aged About 64 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1558/2018 Hemlata Karnawat W/o Rajesh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 14-15, Backside Of Rainbow House, Paota B Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan And Ors., Thorugh The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, (10 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporatiion Ltd., Udhyog, Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1559/2018 Lala Ram S/o Bhaga Ram, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali Brahman, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industires, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporatiion Ltd., Udhyog, Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1560/2018 1. Babu Lal S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahman, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Looniya S/o Bohat Ram,, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industires, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporatiion Ltd., Udhyog, Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1562/2018 (11 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Bheema Ram S/o Rama Ram, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Bawari, Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1566/2018 Umaid Raj Jain S/o Shri N.R. Jain, Aged About 56 Years, 296 B, Sardarpura, First A Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1672/2018 1. Mangiya S/o Sujan, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali, Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali 2. Thakariya S/o Sujan, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali, Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali 3. Mooliya S/o Sujan, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali, Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali 4. Bhundaki widow of Sujan, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali, Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali ----Petitioners Versus (12 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Division Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1673/2018 1. Jetha Ram S/o Bhopal, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali 2. Junjhar S/o Bhopal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali 3. Gayad S/o Bhopal, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1702/2018 Tulsi Ram S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And (13 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1708/2018 Hari Ram s/o Binja Ram, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Bawari, Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial, Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1726/2018 Sona Ram S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Bawari , Nimbali Brahman, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1727/2018 Phool Singh S/o Bheru Singh, Aged About 53 Years, B/c Rajput , Nimbali Brahman, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner (14 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1728/2018 1. Jhumar Lal S/o Chunni Lal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmanan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Pukhraj S/o Chunni Lal,, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbadli Brahmanan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Narayan Lal S/o Chunni Lal,, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 4. Ramchandra S/o Chunni Lal,, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1743/2018 1. Bhola Ram S/o Ganga Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali, Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Chhoga Ram S/o Ganga Ram, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali, Brahmnan, Rohet, (15 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1813/2018 Dakhu Devi W/o Girdari Ram, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Su Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1858/2018 1. Bhanwara Ram S/o Keriya, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Meghwal, Nimbali Brahman, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Ratna Ram S/o Keriya, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Meghwal, Nimbali Brahman, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Hema Ram S/o Keriya, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Meghwal, Nimbali Brahman, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (16 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1867/2018 Tulsi Ram S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1868/2018 Kana Ram S/o Poora Ram, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Bawari R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Devlopment And Investmnt Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents (17 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1872/2018 Lala Ram S/o Bhaga Ram, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1873/2018 Bhanwariya S/o Kehra, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1887/2018 1. Mangiya S/o Rawat Ram, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Gopiya S/o Rawat Ram,, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Raika, Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, (18 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1888/2018 1. Aasha Ram S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Nai, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Heera Ram S/o Ram Chandra,, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Nai, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Puka Ram S/o Ram Chandra,, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Nai, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1889/2018 1. Manohar Singh S/o Ladu Singh, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. 2. Indra Singh S/o Ladu Singh,, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, (19 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Rajasthan. 2. Sub Division Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1890/2018 1. Bhanwara Ram S/o Keriya, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Meghwal,r/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Ratna Ram S/o Keriya,, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Hema Ram S/o Keriya,, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1892/2018 Thakar Ram S/o Sujan Ram, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Bawari, Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. (20 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11450/2018 Madan Lal S/o Shri Khima Ram, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Nai, Nimbali Brahman, Tehsil And District Pali (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Nimbali Brahmnan, District Pali, Rajasthan 4. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14174/2018 1. Moolchand Parakh S/o Simrathmal Parakh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Jalam Niwas, Padamavati Nagar, Paota B Road, Jodhpur. 2. Mangilal Jyani S/o Jagmalaram Jyani, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Khetolai, Tehsil Pokran, Jaisalmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 4. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. (21 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16311/2018 1. Kheta Ram S/o Tulchharam, Aged About 52 Years, Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur 2. Phula Ram S/o Tulchharam, Aged About 36 Years, Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur 3. Birda Ram S/o Tulchharam, Aged About 35 Years, Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 4. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16312/2018 1. Kheta Ram S/o Tulchharam, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. 2. Phula Ram S/o Tulchharam,, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. 3. Birda Ram S/o Tulchharam,, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group- 6) Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisitino Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 4. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan (22 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16313/2018 1. Kheta Ram S/o Tulchharam, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. 2. Phula Ram S/o Tulchharam,, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. 3. Birda Ram S/o Tulchharam,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6) Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 4. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16581/2018 Kanta Bhansali W/o Virendra Bhansali, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Oswal, 20, Jain Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Paota B Road, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan 4. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Coproration Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And (23 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 102/2019 1. Rukma Devi W/o Mana Ram, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Patel, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Amki Devi W/o Poona Ram,, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Patel, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 587/2019 Mukana Ram S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 692/2019 1. Gheesa S/o Mangala, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste (24 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Hindu S/o Mangala, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Bheeka Ram S/o Mangala, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 4. Agri Devi D/o Mangala, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 905/2019 1. Vimla Devi W/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Jetha Ram S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Bhagirath S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 4. Manju Devi D/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 5. Dhanaki Devi D/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 6. Vidya Devi D/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 7. Leela Devi D/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 8. Rekha Devi D/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 28 Years, (25 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 910/2019 Manohar Singh S/o Ladu Singh, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Nimbali Brahman, Tehsil Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through It Managing Director, Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. , Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1024/2019 Tulsi Ram S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Paliwal, Resident Of Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And (26 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1094/2019 1. Jetha Ram S/o Bhopal, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Hariya S/o Girdhari, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Kaaniya S/o Girdhari, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 4. Durga S/o Girdhari, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 5. Jamna W/o Late Girdhari, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Raika, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1307/2019 1. Bheeka Ram S/o Jagannath, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Tulsa Ram S/o Jagannath, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (27 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 2. Sub Divisional Office (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1482/2019 1. Dhagala Ram S/o Mangala Ram, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 2. Bhanwara Ram S/o Kera Ram,, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 3. Hema Ram S/o Kera Ram,, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 4. Chanda Ram S/o Prabhu Ram,, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 5. Chanda Ram S/o Lumba Ram,, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 6. Shesha Ram S/o Dhagala Ram Sargara,, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 7. Bheema Ram S/o Rama Ram,, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. 8. Ganga Ram S/o Pura Ram,, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Nimbali Brahmnan, Rohet, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet, District Pali, Rajasthan. 3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. (28 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7639/2019 1. Manish S/o Shri Hari Prasad Maheshwari, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 8-B, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. 2. Rohit S/o Shri Rajendra,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Jwala Vihar Yojana, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. 3. Sunit Datt S/o Shri Roop Narayan,, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 115A, Jwala Vihar Yojana, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secertary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7640/2019 1. Indu Maheshwari W/o Shri Hari Maheshwari, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. 2. Sunil Kalani S/o Shri Roop Narayan Maheshwari,, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. 3. Anita Kalani W/o Shri Sunil Datt Kalani,, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. 4. Rajendra Maheshwari S/o Shri Roop Narayan Maheshwari,, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. 5. Rekha Maheshwari w/o Shri Rajendra Maheshwari,, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. (29 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District- Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7713/2019 Deepak Nyati S/o Shri Tulsi Das Nyati, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o Dau Ki Dhani, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7803/2019 Deepak Nyati S/o Shri Tulsi Das Nyati, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dau Ki Dhani, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collecor-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9808/2019 Abida W/o Mohd. Sabir, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste (30 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Muslim, R/o D-178, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9934/2019 Abida W/o Mohd. Sabir, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o D-178, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9957/2019 Chandra Kumar S/o Lada Ram Ji, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Sindhi, R/o Vijay Chowk, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (31 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10642/2019 1. Piyush Kumar Sharda S/o Achal Das Sharda, Aged About 46 Years, 48, Nehru Park, Jodhpur. 2. Manish Kumar Sharda S/o Achal Das Sharda, Aged About 50 Years, 48, Nehru Park, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11206/2019 Kishanchand Gangwani S/o Shri Heeralal, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Sindhi, R/o B-21, Kamla Nehru Nagar, 2Nd Vistar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11226/2019 Chem Impex Corporation, Jodhpur, Through Its Partner Shri Mohit Jain S/o Shri Hasti Mal Jain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 41, Central School Scheme, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus (32 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11227/2019 Vasudev Kherajani S/o Shri Khushal Das, Aged About 59 Years, B/c Sindhi, R/o House No. D-111, Shashtri Nagar Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11230/2019 Shanti Devi Lohiya W/o Shri Ramdas, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). (33 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11232/2019 Goverdhan Das Lohiya S/o Kanmal Lohiya, Aged About 71 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 12/12, Civil Lines, Residency Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11235/2019 Karuna Lohiya W/o Shri Shanti Prakash Lohiya, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 11Th Pal Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11238/2019 Leela Lohiya W/o Goverdhan Das Lohiya, Aged About 68 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 12/12, Civil Lines, Residency Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. (34 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11239/2019 Naresh Vyas S/o Shri Shivratan Vyas, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Nathawaton Ki Bari, Nav Chaukiya, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11282/2019 Ritesh Lohiya S/o Goverdhan Das Lohiya, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 12/12, Civil Lines, Residency Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11530/2019 (35 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Smt. Preeti Lohiya W/o Ritesh Lohiya, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 12/12, Civil Lines, Residency Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11694/2019 Bajrang Singh S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Bagara, Tehsil And District Jalore, Presently R/o Bjs Colony, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Woks Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11988/2019 1. Smt. Sukhali Devi W/o Bhawandas Sindhi, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 2. Sama Devi W/o Mohan Lal Sindhi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kawar Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Meera Devi W/o Kishanlal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Khanda Phalsa, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, (36 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Woks Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12140/2019 1. Smt. Sukhali Devi W/o Bhawandas Sindhi, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 2. Smt. Sama Devi W/o Mohan Lal Sindhi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kawar Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Smt. Meera Devi W/o Kishanlal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Khanda Phalsa, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12467/2019 1. Smt. Sukhali Devi w/o Bhawandas Sindhi, Aged About 71 Years, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 2. Sama Devi w/o Mohan Lal Sindhi, Aged About 55 Years, Kawar Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Meera Devi w/o Kishanlal, Aged About 60 Years, Khanda Phalsa, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And (37 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12484/2019 1. Paras Kawad S/o Shri Jawari Lal, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o A-183, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur. 2. Sanjay Surana S/o Lal Chand Surana, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o Plot No. 49, Income Tax Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. 3. Naresh Surana S/o Lal Chand Surana, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o Plot No. 49, Income Tax Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12575/2019 1. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Sirvi, R/o Village Khariya Mithapur, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.). 2. Anachi Devi W/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Sirvi, R/o Village Khariya Mithapur, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer) S.d.o., Bilara, Bar Bilara Jodhpur Section, (N.h. 112). (38 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Bar Bilara Jodhpur Section) Project Implement Unit, Nhai Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12595/2019 Paras Kawad S/o Shri Jawari Lal, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o A-183, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12966/2019 1. Narayan Lal S/o Kesa Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Jodhpur. 2. Sugna D/o Kesa Ram, Aged About 59 Years, Jodhpur. 3. Sukhi Devi D/o Kesa Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Jodhpur. 4. Jasa Ram S/o Giga Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Jodhpur. 5. Deva Ram S/o Giga Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Jodhpur. 6. Sundari Spouse/o Giga Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Jodhpur. 7. Kalu Ram S/o Panna Ram, Aged About 54 Years, Jodhpur. 8. Mangi Devi D/o Panna Ram, Aged About 58 Years, Jodhpur. 9. Bhuri Devi Spouse/o Panna Ram, Aged About 90 Years, All B/c Sirvi, R/o 185-A, Tisari Tunti, Khati Colony, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, (39 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), S.d.o Bilara, Bar-Bilara-Jodhpur Section, (N.h.-112). 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Bar- Bilara-Jodhpur Section) Project Implement Unit, Nhai Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13034/2019 1. Rajesh Karnawat S/o Shri Chandu Lal, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o 14-15, Paota, B-2 Road, Jodhpur. 2. Nirmal Chand Lodha S/o Shri Sugan Chand, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Oswal, R/o B-2 Road, Ghanshyam Bhawan Scheme, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15452/2019 Murlidhar S/o Rochi Ram, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Sindhi, R/o Ratanada, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). (40 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15454/2019 Gautam S/o Shri Naina Ram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Prajapat, R/o Plot No. D-1, Salawas, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15514/2019 Baby W/o Dinesh, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Prajapat, R/o Plot No. D-2, Salawas, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15523/2019 Murlidhar S/o Rochiram, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Sindhi, R/o Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. (41 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16493/2019 Mahendra Jain S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jain Oswal, R/o Plot No. 620, 11Th A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), And Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12462/2020 Vikram Vishnoi S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Nimbali Patelan, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Gfoup-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority And Land Acquisition), S.d.o. Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, (N.h.- 65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12672/2020 1. Lalit Kishor S/o Jivan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Ravna Rajput, R/o 541, Ravana Rajput Ka Bas, Rohat, District Pali. (42 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 2. Roop Kanwar W/o Jiwan Singh, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Ravna Rajput, R/o 200, Sadar Bazar, Jaton Ka Bas, Rohat, District Pali. 3. Jogsingh Panwar S/o Poonam Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 201, Sadar Bazar, Jato Ka Bas, Rohat, Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority Land Acquisition), S.d.o. Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, N.h.- 65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12675/2020 Lundas Vaishnav S/o Girdhari Das, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Vaishnav, R/o Sadar Bazar, Rohet, District Pali, (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority Land Acquisition), S.d.o. Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, N.h.- 65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12768/2020 1. Ramesh Das S/o Mahendra Das, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Vaishnav, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Jaton Ka Bass, Rohet, District Pali (Raj.). 2. Sushila Devi W/o Mahendra, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste Vaishnav, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Jaton Ka Bass, Rohet, District Pali (Raj.). 3. Mukesh S/o Bheek Das, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Vaishnav, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Jaton Ka Bass, Rohet, District Pali (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus (43 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority Land Acquisition), S.d.o. Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, N.h.- 65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12790/2020 Gajendra Parakh S/o Nemi Chand Jain, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Jain Mohala, Rohet, District Pali (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority Land Acquisition), S.d.o. Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, N.h.- 65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12963/2020 Lundas Vaishnav S/o Girdhari Das, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Vaishnav, R/o Sadar Bazar, Rohet, District Pali (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of Rajasthan, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority Land Acquisition) S.d.o., Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, (N.h.-65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12975/2020 1. Vikram Vishnoi S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 38 Years, By (44 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Caste Vishnoi, R/o Nimbali Patelan, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali. 2. Sravani Devi W/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Nimbali Patelan, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Department (Group-6), Jaipur. 3. The Prescribed Authority (Competent Authority Land Acquisition), S.d.o. Rohet, Rohet Bypass Section, (N.h.-65), Jodhpur-Pali Road. 4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, (Public Works Department) National Highway Division, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5798/2021 Udit A. Mehta S/o Shri Akshay J. Mehta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 93, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur (Through Will Of Late Shri J.s. Mehta, R/o House No. 93, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group - 6), Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. , Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranada, Jodhpur. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer - Sdo Luni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6361/2021 Nitesh Parakh S/o Shri Lal Chand Parakh, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Oswal, R/o 3A 5/6 High Court Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6), Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub (45 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Divisional Magistrate (S.d.m) Jodhpur, (Section-1 Dangiyawas, Keru Nagaur Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 3. The Project Director, Project Implement Unit, National Highway Authority Of India, House No. 148, Umaid Heritage Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)/ appellant(s), through V.C. : Mr. Pradeep Swami For Respondent(s), through V.C. : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Saransh Vij Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Mr. Sushil Bishnoi HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment reserved on 01.02.2022 Judgment pronounced on 05/02/2022 REPORTABLE By the Court: (Per Akil Kureshi, CJ): 1. The challenge in this group of cases is to the manner of determination and quantum of compensation awarded to the land users under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’). There are different flavours to this challenge, which may be noticed from the respective lead proceedings. 2. In case of Susila Kankariya vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5916/2021), the petitioner has (46 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] challenged a portion of the notification dated 14.06.2016 issued by the State Government under which all the areas falling within the Jodhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’) are to be considered as urban areas for the purpose of determination of compensation under the Act of 2013. The petitioner is owner of the agricultural land bearing khasra No.72 and 72/5 of village Doliya, Tehsil Jodhpur. The village falls within the JDA area. The competent authority under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘Act of 1956’, for short) issued a notification dated 03.08.2018 proposing the acquisition of various lands including the said lands of the petitioner for the purpose of four laning of national highway for Jodhpur ring road. Notification under Section 3D under the Act of 1956 was issued on 07.12.2018. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.03.2019. An amount of Rs.1,29,60,462/- was awarded to the petitioner which she received on 24.12.2020 under protest. The petitioner would point out that for awarding compensation, the provisions under the Act of 2013 are made applicable. Section 26 of the said Act provides for determination of market value of land by the Collector, relevant portion of which reads as under: “26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.–(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:— (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (47 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11. Explanation 1.—The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made. Explanation 2.—For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account. Explanation 3.—While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. Explanation 4.—While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value. (2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. The First Schedule to the Act of 2013 which is refered to in Section 26(2) reads as under: “THE FIRST SCHEDULE [See section 30(2)] COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS The following components shall constitute the minimum compensation package to be given to those whose land is acquired and to tenants (48 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] referred to in clause (c) of section 3 in a proportion to be decided by the appropriate Government. Serial Number Component of compensation package in respect of land acquired under the Act Manner of determination of value Date of determination of value (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Market value of land To be determined as provided under section 26. 2. Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural area 1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on the distance of project from urban area, as may be notified* by the appropriate Government. 3. Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of urban areas 1 (One) 4. Value of assets attached to land or building To be determined as provided under section 29. 5. Solatium Equivalent to one hundred percent of the market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified against serial number 2 for rural areas or serial number 3 for urban areas plus value of assets attached to land or building against serial number 4 under column (2). 6. Final award in rural areas Market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified against serial number 2 plus value of assets attached to land or building mentioned against serial number 4 under column (2) plus solatium mentioned against serial number 5 under column (2). 7. Final award in urban areas Market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified (49 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] against serial 3 plus value of assets attached to land or building mentioned against serial number 4 under column (2) plus solatium mentioned against serial number 5 under column (2). 8. Other component, if any, to be included NOTE.–The date on which values mentioned under column (2) are determined should be indicated under column (4) against each serial number.” As per serial No.2 in the said Schedule, the market value would be multiplied by a factor in case of rural areas would be as notified by the appropriate Government in the range of 1 to 2, based on the distance of the project from the urban area. The State Government has, for the said purpose, issued the impugned notification dated 14.06.2016. Translated version of this notification reads as under: “NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act NO.30 of 2013) read with the powers given under the First Schedule of the Act and superseding its Notification Sr. No.P.1(3)Raj.-6/2011/Part/13 Jaipur dated 16.10.2014, the State Government hereby notifies that in case of Rural Area, the multiple factor to be applied for determination of compensation, will depend on the distance of the Project, acquired land from the nearest Urban Area will be as follows:- Distance from Urban Area Multiple Factor to be applied 0-10 K.M. 1.25 10-20 K.M. 1.50 20-30 K.M. 1.75 30 K.M. and above 2.00 Explanation:- For Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, Urban Area will be the limits of the Development Authority Area. For other areas, Urban Area will be limits of Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Municipality which consists of various wards, where the elections of local bodies are held. (50 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] By order of Governor Sd/- (Dr. Kunj Bihari Pandiya) Joint Secretary” According to the petitioner, the explanation contained in the said notification dated 14.06.2016 is ultra vires the powers of the State Government. In this context, the petitioner in addition to praying for a declaration that the said portion of the notification is illegal, has further prayed that compensation may be awarded to the petitioner by adopting multiplying factor of 2. The petitioner would point out that the Central Government has issued a notification dated 09.02.2016 by which the uniform factor of 2 is applied in the case of all rural areas. 3. In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1466/2018 Smt. Himadri Jain vs. State of Rajasthan and others, brief facts of the case are that the appellant-original petitioner was owner of the agricultural lands situated in village Rohet, Tehsil Rohet, district Pali. For acquiring such land for the purpose of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RIICO’) a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.12.2010. Notifications under Section 6 were issued on 05.01.2012 and 20.09.2012. Award was passed by the competent authority on 10.03.2015 under the Act of 2013. At the time when the award was passed the multiplying factor for awarding compensation was prescribed by the State Government under a notification dated 16.10.2014, translated version of which reads as under: “NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land (51 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the State Government hereby notifies that in case of Rural Area, the multiple factor to be applied for determination of compensation, will depend on the distance of the Project, acquired land from the nearest Urban Area will be as follows:- Distance from Urban Area Multiple Factor to be applied 0-15 K.M. 1.25 15-30 K.M. 1.50 30 K.M. and above 1.75 Explanation:- For Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, Urban Area will be the limits of the Development Authority Area. For other areas, Urban Area will be limits of Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Municipality which consists of various wards, where the elections of local bodies are held. By order of Governor Sd/- (Anil Kumar Aggarwal) Joint Secretary” The main grievance of the petitioner in this case is that for choosing the multiplying factor at the time of awarding compensation, the authorities have taken the distance of the petitioner’s land from the outer limits of JDA area, which is illegal. According to the petitioner, the land is situated in Pali district. Since this land is at the distance of more than 30 kilometers from the limits of Pali municipal council, the multiplying factor of 1.25 adopted by the authorities was erroneous and instead the multiplying factor of 1.75 as per the said notification should have been adopted. Consequently, the petitioner had prayed that after applying the said multiplier, compensation be awarded and difference be paid with interest. The petitioner had also prayed for quashing the explanation portion of the notification dated 16.10.2014 under which the entire JDA area is considered as urban area. (52 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition along with bunch of similarly situated petitions making following observations:- “I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. The basic bone of contention between the parties to the litigation is regarding interpretation of the notification dated 16.10.2014 which has been reproduced hereinabove. The notification was issued for applying graded multiple factor on the market value of the lands to be acquired. Upon a plain and simple reading of the notification, it is apparent that the State Government took a conscious decision that multiplier applicable would have to be assessed in reference to the distance of the land under acquisition from “the nearest urban area”. Had it been the intention of the rule making authority even for a moment to apply the multiplier in reference to the distance from the headquarter of the district concerned, such connotation would have been mentioned in the notification itself. The explanation below the notification makes the issue crystal clear while providing that for the three cities having Development Authorities i.e. Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, the urban limits shall be considered to be the entire area where the jurisdiction of the development authority extends whereas for the others, it shall be construed to be the local limit of the Municipality concerned. Manifestly, there is logic and rational behind the purport of this notification. It is expected that with inclusion of the rural areas within the territorial limits of the development authority (which extend to well beyond the municipal limits of the city), urban development would reach such areas more rapidly as compared to the rural areas adjoining the smaller Municipal towns. Simultaneously, the adjoining areas even if in another district would be directly benefitted by such development. It has been clearly provided in the notification dated 16.10.2014 that the multiplier shall be graded from 1.25 to 1.75 according to the distance of the land from the “nearest urban area”. Admittedly, as per the geographical domains, the lands of Rohat and Nimbli Brahmanan (though falling in the Pali District), are closure in proximity to the limits of Jodhpur Development Authority (the nearest urban area) and thus, expectedly, DLC rates of these areas would be higher as compared to other rural areas in the Pali District. As such and in view of the unambiguous language of the notification (Annexure-3) dated 16.10.2014 governing the multiple factor to be applied for evaluating market value of the lands (which in the cases of the petitioners lands could be the JDA), this (53 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents were perfectly justified in applying the multiplier 1.25 market value of the lands for determining the compensation payable to the petitioners pursuant to acquisition of their lands in the two revenue villages mentioned above. Finding no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned action, I am not inclined to exercise this Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to interfere therein. Hence, these writ petitions as well as stay applications are dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed in each file.” Against the said judgment, the original petitioner has filed the appeal. Some of the petitions of this group which were not yet decided by the single judge have been clubbed with this group. 4. The State Government and RIICO had opposed both sets of petitions and appeals. Multiple replies have been filed by the State Government as well as RIICO in the case of Kheta Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16311/2018). These replies will cover both the sets of challenges. 5. In an affidavit dated 18.11.2019, the State authorities have pointed out that the multiplying factor of 1.25 is applied for awarding compensation to the petitioner based on its distance from the urban area of Jodhpur. For such purpose, the distance of the village from the municipal council limits of district Pali is not relevant. Additional affidavits were filed on 06.02.2020 and 24.08.2020 along with which certain internal proceedings which led to the issuance of notification dated 14.06.2016, have been produced. It is pointed out that the issue of fixing multiplier was considered by the Cabinet committee. Earlier notification dated 16.10.2014 contained a maximum multiplying factor of 1.75. The (54 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] same has been enhanced to 2 under the fresh notification dated 14.06.2016. Our attention was drawn to the detailed deliberations made by the State Government before issuing the previous notification dated 16.10.2014 where the question of treating Jaipur, Jodhpur and urban authorities areas as urban areas came up for consideration. It was observed by the committee consisting of three Hon’ble Ministers that for these regions the entire urban development authority area should be considered as urban area. Whereas for the remaining areas, the lands situated in villages are at far away distance from the urban centers and hence in such areas the urban area may be confined to outer municipal limits. Our attention was drawn to the deliberations made by the State Government pursuant to suggestions made by the High Court, but it was decided not to deviate from the original policy. 6. The RIICO has also filed a detailed reply. This reply is primarily in relation to the demand of the petitioners that multiplying factor may be applied considering the distance of the land from Pali municipal council since the village in which the land is situated falls within the Pali district. According to RIICO, this would be wholly impermissible and the distance from the nearest urban area has to be taken into account. 7. The State Government as well as RIICO both have also opposed the contention of the petitioners that the notification issued by the Government for prescribing multiplier is bad in law. It is contended that it is within the power of the State authorities. It is also contended that there is no illegality in treating the entire urban development authority area as an urban area for the (55 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] purpose of determination of market value of the land under Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013. 8. Based on such facts, learned counsel for the petitioners raised following contentions: (i) The explanations contained in the impugned resolutions were beyond the jurisdiction of the rule making authority and therefore, ultra vires the Act. (ii) Through these explanations an artificial definition of urban area is sought to be introduced in relation to Jodhpur, Jaipur and Ajmer development authorities. This would amount to hostile discrimination and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (iii) The Jodhpur municipal corporation limits are different from Jodhpur development area limits. Municipal corporation is a body of self-governance and has constitutional status. The JDA is an authority constituted under the Act and does not have the same powers and character as the municipal corporation, which is constituted through elected representatives of the people. (iv) The Union Government under notification dated 09.02.2016 has prescribed uniform multiplying factor of 2 for all lands situated in rural areas. The State Government cannot deviate from this prescription. (v) Terms ‘rural area’ and ‘urban area’ are not defined under the Act of 2013. They must, therefore, be understood as the bodies of self-governance as provided in Part-IX pertaining to the Panchayats and Part-IXA pertaining to the municipalities contained in the Constitution. (56 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] (vi) Counsel drew our attention to Sections 106 and 107 of the Act of 2013 and submitted that the impugned notifications run contrary to the said provisions also. (vii) Counsel relied on certain decisions, reference to which would be made at appropriate stage. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the petitions contending that in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, it was within the power of the State Government to prescribe an appropriate multiplying factor by issuing notification in this respect. The notifications were issued after due deliberations and mature consideration. Our attention was drawn to the minutes of the meetings of the high level committees, which were convened before choosing and notifying the multiplying factors. Counsel contended that as an appropriate Government, the State Government had authority to adopt a suitable multiplier between 1 to 2 as provided in First Schedule to the Act. The notification issued by the Union of India for its own purposes would not bind the State Government. Counsel contended that there is nothing in Sections 106 and 107 of the Act of 2013, which limits the powers of the State Government to issue notification prescribing appropriate factor. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the RIICO, in addition to adopting the arguments made by the learned Additional Advocate General, further submitted that the approach of the petitioners before the High Court is highly belated. In both sets of cases, awards were passed long back. Petitioners have accepted the compensation as per the awards. If they are aggrieved by the (57 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] compensation determined, remedy is provided under the Act of 2013. Counsel submitted that the contention of the petitioners that with respect to the lands which are situated in Pali district for choosing the appropriate multiplier according to the notification, distance from the municipal council limits of Pali should be taken into consideration is not correct. The distance of the land or village has to be determined from the nearest urban area which in the present case happened to be Jodhpur. Merely because geographically the villages fall within the revenue limits of Pali district, would make no difference. Learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The appeals filed by the land owners deserve to be dismissed. 11. As noted, there are two streams of proceedings. In one set of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the explanation contained in the notification dated 14.06.2016. The other set of proceedings relate to writ petitions as well as appeals where the petitioners have challenged the explanation contained in notification dated 16.10.2014 and have also argued that the competent authority committed an error by taking into account distance of the acquired land from JDA area for the purpose of selecting multiplying factor, though the lands are situated in Pali district. Under the circumstances, the questions which arise for consideration are; (i) Whether the explanation contained in the above noted two notifications are legal and valid? (ii) Whether the competent authority was correct in taking into account the distance of the acquired land from the JDA area, though the lands form part of the Pali district? (58 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] (iii) Whether the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions? 12. We may first deal with the validity of the explanations. The Act of 2013 was framed to ensure a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities etc. and cause least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation as also to make adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement of affected persons. The term ‘local authority’ has been defined under Section 3(s) as to include a town planning authority; by whatever name called; set up under any law for the time being in force, a Panchayat as defined in Article 243 and a municipality as defined in Article 243P of the Constitution. Compensation to be paid for acquisition of the land under the said Act is to be determined as provided in the provisions contained in Chapter-V of the Act. Section 26 contained in the said Chapter pertains to determination of market value of land by the Collector. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 provides the parameters which the Collector shall apply in assessing and determining the market value of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 provides that the market value calculated as per Sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. As per Section 27, the Collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owners including all assets attached to the land. While determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the Collector shall take into consideration various factors (59 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] contained in Section 28. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a solatium amount equivalent to 100% of the compensation amount. 13. As per the scheme contained in the Act of 2013 for determination of awarding total compensation to be paid to the land owner, determination of multiplying factor as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act plays a major role. Such multiplying factor would be as specified in the First Schedule to the Act. A perusal of the said Schedule would show that the factor, by which the market value to be multiplied in case of rural areas, would be between 1 to 2 based on the distance of the project from urban area as may be notified by the appropriate Government. On the other hand, the factor by which the market value to be multiplied in case of urban areas is uniformly 1. 14. The terms ‘urban areas’ and ‘rural areas’ are not defined under the Act of 2013, nor have they been defined under the Rajasthan Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2016’). It does not require great amount of imagination that these terms are mutually exclusive are so used in the First Schedule. It is in this context that the appropriate Government is authorised to specify multiplying factor for rural areas which is based on its distance from the urban areas. While so specifying the factor, it is also open for the appropriate Government to specify in such notification which areas shall be deemed to be urban areas. As a consequence, the areas not falling within such urban areas would (60 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] be treated as rural areas. We do not think that the power of the appropriate Government in terms of the First Schedule is confined to prescribing a factor only. It includes the power to specify the concept of urban area also. The expression “1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on the distance from the urban area as may be notified” include both. 15. With this clarity, we may revert back to the impugned notifications. As noted, in the notification dated 16.10.2014 issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, the multiplying factors prescribed were 1.25 for the rural area situated at a distance of 0-15 kilometers from urban area, 1.50 for the land situated at a distance of 15-30 kilometers and 1.75 for the land situated at a distance of 30 kilometers and above. By a subsequent notification dated 14.06.2016, this formula was made more liberal. Multiplying factor of 1.25 would be applied to the land situated at a distance of 0-10 kilometers from urban area, 1.50 for the land situated at a distance of 10-20 kilometers, 1.75 for the land situated at a distance of 20-30 kilometers and 2.00 for the land situated at a distance of 30 kilometers and above. Both these notifications contained explanations, which were similarly worded. As per these explanations, for Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer the limits of development authority areas would be considered as urban areas. For the other areas, urban areas would be the limits of municipal corporation, municipal council and municipality which consist of various wards, where the elections of local bodies are held. This explanation thus made two clear specifications in the context of the term ‘urban area’. For areas (61 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] other than Jodhpur, Jaipur and Ajmer, the municipal corporation, municipal council and municipality limits would comprise urban area. Whereas, in case of these three cities, the limits of development authority area would be the urban area limit. As noted, neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder by the State Government define the terms ‘urban area’ and ‘rural area’. In terms of the First Schedule read with Section 26 of the Act of 2013, in our opinion, it was well within the power of the State Government to not only prescribe the factor to be multiplied while determining compensation for rural areas, but also define what would comprise the urban areas. 16. As is well known, towns and cities in our country have grown at a rapid pace. The boundaries of municipalities and municipal corporation are re-drawn by the legislature from time to time bringing within the fold newer areas in the periphery of the towns and cities. While this process is on going, even outside the municipal limits urban centers flourish. These municipal areas with peripheral urban areas form urban conglomerations. These peripheral areas outside the municipal limits may still continue to be recognized as revenue villages. However, they enjoy virtually same modern amenities, development and at any rate high development potential as their neighbouring lands which are technically within the municipal limits. Such phenomenon are more visible in bigger cities and urban centers. Since these urban conglomerations comprise to areas within the municipal corporations as well as areas outside the municipal corporations, in order to achieve planned development of the entire region, development authorities are often times constituted under (62 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] relevant statutes. These development authorities undoubtedly are not the bodies of self-governance. They are not constituted through elected representatives of the people but nevertheless perform important functions of town planning and development and are vested with statutory powers and duties. If, therefore, for the purpose of deciding the factor for awarding compensation in case of lands situated in rural area, the State Government in exercise of its powers of delegated legislation, found it appropriate to segregate the urban conglomeration of Jodhpur, Jaipur and Ajmer as compared to other municipal areas of the State, we do not find that the same was either beyond its legislative competence or in any manner arbitrary or discriminatory. In our view, the nature of powers for constitution of the Municipal Corporation or development authority is not determinative factor for the purpose of defining the urban area. The Municipal Corporations and development authorities undoubtedly are constituted in vastly different manner and enjoy different powers and are vested with different functions and duties. Merely because the JDA is not an institution of self-governance, it would be incorrect to believe that for the purpose of defining an urban area, JDA limit cannot form a valid basis. 17. The prescription of uniform multiplying factor of 2 by the Union Government under the notification dated 09.02.2016 would not limit the power of the State Government to prescribe appropriate multiplying factor between 1 to 2 as envisaged in the First Schedule. The power is vested in the appropriate Government. The term appropriate Government is defined in Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013, as per which in terms of Clause (i) (63 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] appropriate Government means the State Government in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of a State. 18. Nothing contained in Sections 106 and 107 of the Act of 2013 runs contrary to the explanations under challenge. Sub- section (1) of Section 106 provides that the Central Government may by notification amend or alter any of the schedules to the Act, without in any way reducing the compensation or diluting the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement. Likewise, Section 107 provides that nothing in this Act shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under this Act which confers higher compensation than payable under the provisions of the Act or for rehabilitation and resettlement and make more beneficial provisions. Sections 106 and 107 thus give certain powers to the Central and State Governments, which come with inherent limitations of not reducing the compensation or diluting the provisions of the Act in relation to rehabilitation and re- settlement of the project affected persons. These provisions thus enable the Central or the State Government to enlarge the benefits that would be available under the Act, but not reduce them. Again this may at best indicate the benevolent slant of the statute, nevertheless the legislature has vested the discretion in the appropriate Government while choosing a multiplying factor as provided in the First Schedule. 19. We have noted that such multiplying factor was chosen after due deliberations and mature considerations. Meetings of high level committees including the Cabinet members were held. After due deliberations multiplying factors were prescribed under the (64 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] notification published on 16.10.2014. This was liberalised in the subsequent notification dated 14.06.2016. At the request of the High Court, the issue was re-considered in relation to the three specified Development Authority areas. It was, however, found not feasible to drop the explanations. When the discretion is vested in the appropriate Government to prescribe a multiplying factor in exercise of delegated power of legislation, we would not interfere unless the exercise of powers suffers from irrationality, which in the present case we do not find. 20. Contention of the petitioners that in relation to land situated within Pali district distance from JDA area could not be taken into consideration is not valid. The test to be applied is the distance from the nearest urban area. Whether such urban area falls in the same district as the land is situated in or a neighbouring district is of no consequence. Accepting the contention of the petitioners would lead to anomalous situation. If an urban center is situated at the border of the district, there may be numerous villages in the periphery of such urban center, which may be otherwise located in the neighboring district. The distance from such urban center has to be reckoned for the purpose of determining the factor as per the notification. 21. We may now refer to the decisions cited by the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Income Tax Officer vs. Urban Improvement Trust (Civil Appeal No.10577/2018, decided on 12.10.2018). Our attention was drawn to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 27 of the judgment, which reads as under: (65 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] “27. A perusal of the Scheme of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 as well as the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 indicate that Urban Improvement Trust undertakes development in the urban area included in municipality/municipal board. Urban Improvement Truest is not constituted in place of the municipality/municipal board rather it undertakes the act of improvement in urban areas of a municipality/municipal board under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. It may also perform certain limited power of the municipal board as referred to in Sections 47 and 48 but on the strength of such provision Urban Improvement Trust does not become a municipality or municipal board. After the insertion of Part IXA in the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth) Amendment Act, 1992 w.e.f. 01.06.1993, Articles 243Q deals with constitution of Municipalities. Section 10(20) Explanation, Clause (ii) relates to Municipalities.” 22. These observations have been made in the context of the question whether the Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the statutes is a local authority within the meaning of Clause (iii) of explanation of Section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, is entitled for exemption under the said provision. It was observed that the Urban Improvement Trust is not municipality or municipal board. Article 243Q of the Constitution deals with the constitution of the municipalities. This decision was, thus, rendered in entirely different background. Further, we have not based our conclusions on the premise that JDA is to be treated as a municipal corporation. 23. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhiraj Ambalal Patel vs. State of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No.8734/2019, decided on 12.09.2019). The facts leading to the petition were that the State Government had published a resolution dated 25.04.2014 stating that until the factor regarding lands in rural areas is quantified the market value calculated should be (66 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] multiplied by factor 1 and as and when a decision on the factor is taken the same would be applied to the acquired lands and the compensation would be revised accordingly and be paid with interest. Subsequently, the Government had issued a resolution dated 29.07.2016 deciding that for the land in rural areas the market value would be multiplied by factor of 2. A notification was issued by the Government on 10.11.2016, in which after referring to the previous two resolutions dated 25.04.2014 and 29.07.2016, it was further provided that in order to assess market value and the factor which needs to be considered for multiplying it, the areas shown shall be considered as urban area and except such areas shown, the rest will be considered as rural areas. As per this notification urban areas would be areas such as former urban land ceiling areas, Mahanagarpalika areas, areas under urban development area, areas under area development authority, Nagarpalika areas, notified areas and cantonment areas. Subsequently, Government issued yet another resolution dated 11.09.2018 holding that areas falling under the urban development authorities and area development authority shall not be considered as urban areas. The resolution, however, stipulated that this would be applicable only to such awards which are passed after the date of resolution. The petitioners thereunder held the land situated in peripheral villages of Gandhinagar city have fell within the Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority area. The lands were acquired and the award was passed prior to the resolution dated 11.09.2018. They, therefore, challenged the stand of the State Government awarding compensation for their lands treating them as urban areas. The rules framed by the (67 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] State Government under the Act of 2013 defined the term ‘rural area’ and ‘urban area’. The ‘urban area’ is defined as to mean any area in the State except the areas covered by any urban local body or a cantonment board established or constituted under any law for the time being in force. The term ‘rural area’ was defined as to mean any area in the State covered by any urban local body or a cantonment board established or constituted under any law for the time being in force. In such background, while allowing the petitions, the Gujarat High Court had made following observations: “9.9 In view of the scheme of the Act of 2013 and the judgment in the case of Panjabrao (supra), we are of the opinion that the State Government could not have ventured in redefining the terms “Rural Area” and “Urban Area” once they had been so specifically defined under the Rules of 2017. Moreover, once a Factor is notified in accordance with the powers vested by Section 26(2) read with the First Schedule, variation of a Factor by redefining areas by way of resolutions would amount to colourable exercise of powers which suffers from excessive delegation and is therefore impermissible in law. The Government Resolutions dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 are therefore without authority of law and therefore, deserve to be set aside.” 24. This decision was, thus, rendered in view of the statutory provisions applicable and in particular the rules framed by the State Government under the Act of 2013. 25. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Panjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.4274/2014, decided on 09.03.2015). In the said case, the State Government had issued a notification on 19.03.2014 in terms of the First Schedule to the Act prescribing multiplying factor of 1. By subsequent notification dated 13.08.2014, multiplying factors were provided as follows:- (68 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] 1.00 For the land situated at a radial distance 0-10 kilometers from urban area, 1.05 For the land situated at a radial distance 10-25 kilometers from urban area, 1.10 For the land situated at a radial distance 25 kilometers and above from urban area, 26. These notifications were challenged before the High Court. The Court was of the opinion that providing fixed multiplier of 1.10 in respect of all lands situated at a distance of 25 kilometers from the nearest urban area was arbitrary. The observations of the Court in this respect may be noted: “33] Mere providing a fixed multiplier for all land in rural area which are situated more than 25 Kilometers away from the urban area (nearest Municipal Corporation area) depicts total non application of mind while exercising the discretion provided in First Schedule to the Act of 2013 by respondent/State. Policy guideline to exercise discretion for fixing multiplier provided by the First Schedule is the distance of land under acquisition located in rural area from the urban area. Fixation of fixed multiplier of 1.10 in respect of all lands from rural area which are 25 or more kilometers away from urban area in absence of any such guideline or policy depicts colourable exercise of discretion as well as total non-application of mind and it is contrary to the Constitutional mandate under Article 14. The exercise undertaken by respondent/State in limiting the multiplier factor to 1.10 only for all lands in rural area which are at a distance of more than 25 Kilometers from urban area, shows that the respondent/State has failed to consider the relevant factor of remoteness of land situated in rural area from urban area. The very relevant factor of remoteness from urban area seems to he kept out of consideration by the respondent/State by undertaking half-hearted exercise, concluding that near about 20601 villages are situated above the distance of 25 Kilometers from nearest Municipal Corporation area. With this reasoning, the multiplier factor is spelt out at 1.10 though the First Schedule provides that the same needs to be ranging from 1 to 2 on the basis of actual distance of the project from the urban area. Low market price of remotely located land from rural area requires provision for higher multiplier. This seems to be the object for provision of multiplier ranging from 1 (one) to 2 (two). Pegging multiplier factor at 1.10 for all rural lands located more than 25 Kilometers away (69 of 69) [CW-5916/2021] from urban lands has resulted in giving discriminatory treatment to the land holders whose lands are situated at a far off place from urban area. A land holder whose land is just 25 Kilometers away from urban area will now get compensation by applying very same multiplier factor which a land holder whose land is located at a very long distance, say more than 100 Kilometers or 150 kilometers away from nearest urban area will get. By this arbitrary exercise of discretion the very object of the Act of 2013 of providing adequate compensation to the land holders whose lands are situated at remotest place is frustrated. For judicious exercise of discretion conferred by the First Schedule to the Act of 2013, it was incumbent on the part of respondent/State to undertake survey of calculating exact distance of all lands situated in rural areas from the nearest urban area and then based upon such actual distance multiplier factor ought to have been determined by it. In a similar way, adopting method of calculating radial distance from urban area is also not in consonance with the guideline for fixation of multiplier enumerated in the First Schedule to the Act of 2013. Even in the case in hand, land of the petitioner proposed for acquisition is stated to be located in a rural area situated at a distance of about 75 Kilometers from Jalna town. Still, he will get multiplier factor of only 1.10 in view of notification dated 13.8.2014.” 27. Here again in our view this situation is not arising in the present case. In the case on hand the State Government notification prescribes multiplier of 2 for land situated at a distance of more than 30 kilometers from the urban area. The decision of the Bombay High Court, therefore, does not apply to the present case. 28. In the result, the petitions and appeals are dismissed. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ 201to204,55to152-MohitTak/- "