1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3862/1997 (Navneet Somani & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 18.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Manish Shishodiya, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the respondent No.4. This writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 15.10.1997 in challenge to the proceedings for acquisition of the land comprised in Araji No.3414 at Tehsil and District Bhilwara as taken up by the respondents No.1 to 3 for the purpose of expansion of the existing spinning plant of the respondent No.4 Company, M/s Modern Woollens [A unit of Modern Threads (India) Limited] under the notifications dated 18.09.1996 and 17.09.1997 issued respectively under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 20.12.1997, while issuing notices of this petition to the respondents, this Court directed status quo regarding possession of the land in question to be maintained. Later, on 11.09.2000, the petition was admitted for final hearing. For the reasons and circumstances noticed hereinbelow, it does not appear necessary to dilate on all the factual and legal aspects emerging from the pleadings and documents filed by the parties. Suffice it appears to notice that as back as on 28.10.2004, the petitioners filed an application for disposal of the writ petition while pointing out that by way of a communication dated 10.05.2001, 2. the respondent No.4 Company had already requested the State Government to de-notify the acquisition orders because the Company was not desirous of expansion and had dropped the proposed expansion plan. The copy of the said communication dated 10.05.2001 has also been filed with the application. By the order dated 17.08.2005, this application was ordered to be considered at the time of hearing of the petition. The petition has been taken up for hearing today. The learned counsel Mr. M.S. Singhvi appearing for the respondent No. 4 Company has not opposed nor contradicted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in the said application. The learned Government Counsel Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 was asked for the Government's response to the facts stated in the said application filed by the petitioners and to the accompanying document i.e., the communication sent by the respondent Company on 10.05.2001. The learned Government Counsel prayed for an adjournment so as to complete his instructions. Looking to the circumstances of the case, while taking exception on inexplicable delay on the part of the State Government in putting on record its response though the application was filed about 6 years back, the learned Government Counsel was granted time to take instructions from the authorities concerned during the course of day; and the matter was passed over to be taken in the second session sitting of the Court. Now, in the second session sitting of the Court, the learned Government Counsel submits that the matter is still pending with the 3. Department of Industries and final decision has not been taken. No reason is forthcoming for such an inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in taking a decision on the said communication dated 10.05.2001. It is indeed a sorry state of affairs that the communication sent by the Company concerned as back as on 10.05.2001 to de-notify the acquisition orders has yet not received the attention of the authorities concerned and final order has not been passed thereupon. The net position obtainable is that the acquisition proceedings contemplated way back in the year 1996 for the expansion plan of the respondent No. 4 Company have not progressed further; the stay granted by this Court to maintain status quo regarding possession on the land in question has been operating since 20.12.1997; and, by the communication dated 10.05.2001, the Company concerned specifically requested the Government to withdraw the acquisition orders while pointing out that it had dropped the proposed expansion plan. In this status of record there appears no reason for the Government to continue with the acquisition proceedings in question. The impugned notifications dated 18.09.1996 and 17.09.1997 (Annex.7 and Annex.10 respectively) have been rendered groundless particularly in view of the said communication dated 10.05.2001. In the aforesaid view of the matter, without going into any other aspect, it appears just and proper that the impugned notifications, which are now nothing but redundant, be annulled so as to put an end to this litigation. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notifications dated 18.09.1996 and 17.09.1997 (Annex.7 and Annex.10 respectively) are annulled. No costs. In the interest of justice, it is, however, observed that if there be remaining any other submission in relation to the said communication dated 10.05.2001, it shall be permissible for the parties to move appropriate application for re-consideration of this matter. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. ms rathore