SBCWP NO.2749/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2749/2009. Shehjad Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- May 1, 2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Rahul Tiwari for petitioners. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notification dated 25/7/2006 issued under Section 4 and notification dated 6/8/2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which respondents sought to acquire lands of the petitioners in Khasra No.374 in Village Kehrani, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar with chowk of other adjoining lands. 2) Notice of this writ petition was issued on 20/4/2009 and copy of the petition was SBCWP NO.2749/09. 2 supplied to the learned Additional Government Counsel. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court on Sumer Khan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.7103/2007) and 23 other writ petitions decided on 2/4/2009. In that very petition, very same questions were challenged on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894. Writ petitions were allowed by a detailed judgment, operative part of which, is reproduced hereunder:- “In view of what has been observed (supra) for non-compliance of provisions contained in S.5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, these writ petitions (except CWP-11411/07, 9931/08 & 7652/07 seeking compensation only) succeeds and are hereby allowed; and declaration dt.06/08/07 U/s 6 of the Act qua petitioners who are aggrieved thereby, are hereby quashed & set aside. However, respondents will be at liberty to proceed further pursuant to notification dt.25/07/06 u/s 4 after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners in terms of S.5A(2) of the Act in accordancde with law. CWP-11411/07, 9931/08 & 7652/07 along with applications of intervenors seeking compensation only stand disposed of in the light of observations (supra). No costs.” SBCWP NO.2749/09. 3 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners has also raised similar arguments which were raised and considered in the aforesaid judgment and were ultimately upheld. Writ petition is accordingly allowed in the same terms as aforequoted and similar orders shall obtain in the case of present petitioners. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil