‘Persons who sleep over their rights cannot turn around and challenge’: Rajasthan HC restores Jaipur Metro depot acquisition

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that had quashed land acquisition proceedings for the Jaipur Metro depot at Sheopura village in Sanganer. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma held that the Single Judge had wrongly examined the Land Acquisition Officer’s report as if sitting in appeal. The bench restored the 2011 Section 4 notification covering about 27 hectares and directed the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation to take possession.

The State Government had issued a Section 4 notification (preliminary intent to acquire) on 26 May 2011, identifying about 27 hectares in Village Sheopura, Tehsil Sanganer, as the site for a Metro depot in Phase-II of the Jaipur Metro project. Landowners Alok Kotahwala, Central Orchid Pvt Ltd and Subh Agro Farms and Properties Pvt Ltd filed objections under Section 5A (hearing of objections) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The JMRC filed a reply; a copy was furnished to the objectors on 9 March 2012, with leave to file a rejoinder. No rejoinder came, and no one appeared on 9 April 2012. The LAO submitted his report on 18 May 2012, the Section 6 declaration followed on 5 July 2012, and a Single Judge quashed all three notifications by an order dated 9 May 2023.

Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, for the State and JMRC, argued that the Section 5A inquiry was administrative, not quasi-judicial, and that the LAO need not address every objection individually. Senior counsel A.K. Bhandari and Kamlakar Sharma, for the landowners, contended that the LAO had concluded the inquiry without notifying parties of the 18 May 2012 date and that the Metro was already complete.

Authoring the judgment, Acting Chief Justice Sharma held that the Single Judge had misapplied the scope of judicial review under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction). Relying on State of Haryana v. Gopi Nath & Sons and Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Abhishek Gupta, the bench reiterated that a writ court examines the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision. The Court found that the LAO had heard the objectors, considered the JMRC’s reply and given them a chance to file a rejoinder. Once the objectors failed to appear on the date fixed, the LAO was entitled to submit his report. Justice Sharma observed that the report need not address each objection individually and that the State Government, not the Collector, is the ultimate arbiter under Section 5A.

On the landowners’ delay in approaching the writ court, the bench said: “If the writ petitioners had been diligent in pursuing their objections, they would have made inquiries with the office of the LAO and filed appropriate applications. However, it appears that the writ petitioners approached the Court only after the report had been submitted and the notification under Section 6 had been issued. Persons who sleep over their rights or allow proceedings to continue without any demur cannot subsequently be permitted to turn around and challenge the consequential actions.”

Allowing the appeals, the Division Bench set aside the 9 May 2023 order and directed the JMRC to take possession. However, the bench ordered that the trees standing on the acquired land be transplanted at sites earmarked by the Jaipur Development Authority and the Forest Department, and required the JMRC to additionally plant twice the number of relocated trees in forest areas around Jaipur. Compensation is to be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. A compliance report has been listed for August 2026.

Case details