Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Union Of India vs Jamnadas Sanadhya on 8 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 974/2025
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-Ii), North Western
Railway, Old Indian Oil Corporation Depot, Sector 11,
Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Purushottam Mali S/o Mangi Lal Mali, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of Shrinath Colony-A, Nathdwara District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
2. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer) Cum Sub
Divisional Officer, Nathdwara District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1054/2025
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)- Ii, North Western
Railway, Old Indian Oil Corporation Depot, Sector 11,
Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Jangid,
Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Vishwakarma Niwas,
Gaushala Road, Nathuwas, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand (Raj.).
2. Tilkesh Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Jangid,
Resident Of Shri Ji Kripa Gaushala Road, Nathuwas,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, (Raj.).
3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer) Cum Sub
Divisional Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 776/2025
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) - Ii, North
Western Railway, Old Indian Oil Corporation Depot,
Sector 11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Jamnadas Sanadhya S/o Late Shri Bhagwandas
Sanadhya, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of 16 G,
Sukhadiya Nagar, Nathdwara District Rajsamand (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (2 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
2. Madanlal Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhagwandas Sanadhya,
Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Nathdwara District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
3. Navneetlal Sanadhya S/o Late Shri Bhagwandas
Sanadhya, Aged About 83 Years, Resident Of Shreeji
Kripa, Behind Krishna Motors, Lal Bagh, Nathdwara
District Rajsamand (Raj.)
4. Rahul Sanadhya S/o Late Shri Chimanlal Sanadhya,
Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Anand Kunj, Near
Ambawada Akhada, Gaushala Road, Nathdwara District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
5. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer) Cum Sub
Divisional Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate &
Additional Solicitor General
(through VC) assisted by Mr. Devesh
Yadav & Mr. B.P. Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
Reserved on 05/08/2025
Pronounced on 08/08/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The appellant-Union of India (Ministry of Railways)-
respondent in the writ petitions (henceforth referred to as
‘appellant’) has laid the present challenge to the common order
dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Hon’ble Court in IA No.01/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11742/2024 & IA No.01/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12248/2024, whereby while rejecting the said applications
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (3 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
seeking vacation of the ex parte ad-interim order dated
04.07.2024, the said interim order was confirmed.
1.1. At this juncture itself, it is clarified that the aforesaid interim
order dated 04.07.2024 was passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10433/2024. As regards S.B. Civil Writ Petitions
No.11742/2024 & 12248/2024, the same interim order was
passed on 22.07.2024 and 30.07.2024, respectively.
1.2. Though the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order
dated 26.05.2025 confirmed the interim order dated 04.07.2024
only, but since, vide the impugned order, the stay applications
filed in all the aforementioned writ petitions were disposed of
accordingly, therefore, the said order dated 26.05.2025, in toto, is
the subject matter of impugnment in the instant special appeals
filed by the appellant.
1.3. In this view of the matter, the present special appeals have
been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The genesis of the present litigation is traceable to a
notification dated 29.12.2023, which was issued in terms of
Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Act of 1989’) seeking acquisition of the lands to lay down a new
railway line, namely, ‘Nathdwara-Nathdwara Town’ (Project in
question) in District Rajsamand of the State of Rajasthan. For the
purpose of the said acquisition, the lands of the private
respondents (writ petitioners) were also sought to be acquired for
the Project in question, to which objections were filed by them
under Section 20D of the Act of 1989 on 14.02.2024. The said
objections were decided by the appellant vide order dated
09.04.2024.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (4 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
3. Alleging amongst others, that the objections were decided in
a cursory manner without effective opportunity of hearing thereby
running contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section
20D of the Act of 1989, complete exercise of issuing a new
notification including the lands of the petitioners under the same,
has been undertaken just to benefit certain land holders, thereby
excluding their lands from the acquisition process in question, the
private respondents (writ petitioners) preferred the
aforementioned writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court.
3.1. Vide the ex parte ad-interim order dated 04.07.2024,
22.07.2024 & 30.07.2024, the learned Single Judge of this
Hon’ble Court, while issuing notices in the aforementioned writ
petitions, stayed further acquisition proceedings qua the lands of
the private respondents (writ petitioners).
3.2. Upon filing of the applications by the appellant seeking
vacation of the aforesaid interim order(s), the learned Single
Judge of this Hon’ble Court vide the impugned order dated
26.05.2025, while rejecting the said applications, confirmed the
aforesaid ex parte ad-interim order(s). Relevant portion of the
order dated 26.05.2025 is reproduced as hereunder:
“10. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the
application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of
India.
11. So far as legal position that in usual circumstances,
the Court should not interfere in infrastructure projects
and projects relating to national importance is concerned,
the same does not require any deliberation.
12. True it is that Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held
that some discrepancies here and there can be(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (5 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]compensated or balance of equity can be set by giving
enhanced or modified compensation amount.
13. However, in the instant case, since the mandate of
sub section (2) of section 20D of the Act of 1989 has been
flagrantly flouted, this Court is of the view that the
decision upon petitioners’ objections by the LAO is
fundamentally flawed and void due to breach of mandate
of statutory provisions.
14. At this juncture, the Court proposed the learned
Additional Solicitor General that these petitions may be
disposed of at this stage, by directing the Land Acquisition
Officer to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the
objectors and decide the objections afresh; to which
proposal, surprisingly enough, learned Additional Solicitor
General was not agreeable, by saying that the clock
cannot be put back.
15. In the judgments cited by Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, more
particularly the judgment in the case of Rajeev Suri
(supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that
when there is violation of section 45, as reasonable time
was not allowed to the persons concerned to file
objections, interference of the Court cannot be barred.
16. Similar was the case before the Allahabad High Court
in the case of Jaiveer Singh (supra), which relates to
provisions of the Act of 1989, more particularly breach of
section 20D. The Allahabad High Court in this case has
held that since statutory mandate of section 20D and 20E
has not been followed, as a natural consequence, the
notification impugned deserves to be quashed.
17. The award has been passed in majority of cases,
however, indisputably the award in petitioners’ case has
not yet been passed so far, maybe because of the interim
order.
18. A perusal of the objections filed by the petitioners
reveals that they had raised a specific plea that their
entire cultivable land is being acquired by way of the
notification dated 29.12.2023 whereas earlier notification
dated 07.04.2022 has rescinded proposed acquisition of
barren land. An objection had also been raised that the(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (6 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]land belonging to Nathdwara Temple Board which was
earlier proposed to be acquired has been kept out of the
acquisition proceedings and thus the acquisition
proceedings are malafide.
19. Petitioners have specifically taken this plea in para
No.6 of the memo of writ petition and the same has not
been replied by the respondents. The grounds in this
regard have also not been properly replied. The entire
crux of the reply of the respondents is that the Court
should not rather cannot grant interim order in the cases
like the one in hands. The Division Bench has directed this
Court to decide the writ petition itself, as informed by
learned Additional Solicitor General, but since the
pleadings are copious and both the parties wish to make
detailed submissions and have cited host of the
judgments, the hearing of the case is likely to take
substantial time. That apart, in wake of long list of fresh
cases and impending summer vacations, sufficient time is
not available with the Court to hear detailed submissions,
hence, neither the time nor the other urgent matters
listed today permits hearing of this matter finally.
20. Since, there is fundamental flaw in the decision of the
objections of the petitioners and the award has not been
passed in petitioners’ cases and the award qua other land
loosers have been passed a few months back and laying
down the railway line has not even begun, this Court is
not inclined to vacate the interim order passed by this
Court.
21. The applications filed under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India are, therefore, rejected. The
reasoned interim order passed by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 04.07.2025 is confirmed. The Stay
Applications Nos. 10500/2024, 12248/2024 and
11817/2024 stand disposed of accordingly.
22. List these cases for admission on 17.07.2025, as
prayed by Mr. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor
General.”
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (7 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
3.2.1. Thus, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2025, the
appellant preferred the instant special appeals.
3.3. When the above-numbered D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.776/2025 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jamnadas Sanadhya &
Ors.) came up for consideration on 30.05.2025, this Court, after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and taking
into due consideration the catena of precedent laws cited at the
Bar, stayed the effect and operation of the aforementioned orders
dated 04.07.2024 & 26.05.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon’ble Court, while observing that the Project in
question shall remain subject to final outcome of the special
appeals. Relevant portion of the order dated 30.05.2025 is
reproduced as hereunder:
“4. This Court, after examining the factual matrix of the
case, finds that the project in question is of national
importance, being a railway line connection in Nathdwara
– Rajsamand and the precedent laws laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court clearly provide a pathway whereby the
public projects of such eminence need not be scuttled or
stopped, particularly, when 96% of the project land has
been acquired and the compensation awards have been
made.
5. However, this Court is simultaneously conscious of the
fact that the landowners’ rights must be protected, as the
mandatory provisions of the land acquisition law remain in
force by virtue of the Railway Act, 1989.
6. Thus, to balance the equity, we direct that both the
orders passed by the learned Single Bench on 04.07.2024
& 26.05.2025 shall remain stayed. However, the project in
question shall remain subject to the final outcome of the
special appeal.
7. List this case in the month of July, 2025.”
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (8 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
3.3.1. Against the said order dated 30.05.2025, one of the private
respondents (writ petitioners) preferred Petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.17207/2025 (Jamnadas Sanadhya & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors.) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order dated
04.07.2025, which reads as under:
“1) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
2) As the challenge in the present petition is only to an
interim order passed in the Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
pending before the Division Bench of the High Court, we
are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
SLP (C) No.17207/2025
3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the writ petition itself would become infructuous if the
petitioner is dispossessed and the project is not stayed.
Taking note of the urgency evident from the said
submission, we only request the Division Bench to expedite
the hearing and make an endeavour to dispose of the
pending Civil Special Appeal (Writ) within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4) Anything done in the interregnum will be subject to final
order to be passed by the Division Bench.
5) Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed
of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.”
3.3.2. Thereupon, the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2025 has been
shown to this Court on 25.07.2025, and thus, in view of the said
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court vide the
order dated 25.07.2025 itself, directed listing of the matter
accordingly, for final disposal.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (9 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
3.3.3. Thus, upon an analogous hearing in the instant appeals at
length, the order was reserved vide order dated 05.08.2025.
4. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Senior Counsel & Additional
Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Devesh Yadav & Mr. B.P. Bohra,
appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, while
reiterating his contentions as advanced on 30.05.2025, submitted
that it is an admitted position on record that the Project in
question is of national importance connecting Nathdwara District
with the existing Railway Network and 96% of the Project land has
already been acquired with compensation awarded to the
landowners and only 4% of the land remains, which could not be
acquired only on count of aforementioned interim order, which
stood confirmed vide the impugned order. It was thus submitted
that even assuming, though completely a false averment on behalf
of the private respondents, that there was violation of the
provisions of Section 20D of the Act of 1989 on the part of the
appellant, but on that count alone, the entire acquisition
proceedings, pertaining to a huge infrastructural project of
national importance cannot be put to an indefinite halt, and if it is
so permitted to be done, it would likely become a precedent for
other landowners who have not challenged the acquisition
proceedings before this Court, that too unwarrantedly, thereby
adversely affecting the larger public interest.
4.1. It was further submitted that as is apparent on the face of
the record, there was no irregularity or illegality and/or procedural
lapses in conducting the acquisition proceedings in question for
the purpose of the huge infrastructural project.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (10 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
4.2. It was also submitted that during the proceedings in
question, the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer,
Nathdwara, as discernible from the record, has duly decided all
the objections received within the prescribed time under Section
20D of the Act of 1989, and once the private respondents (writ
petitioners) of their own, chose not to avail such opportunity,
thereby have not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer,
then at this belated stage, their grievances, in the manner raised,
do not deserve to be entertained.
4.3. As against the averment made in the writ petitions that the
complete exercise of issuing a new notification including the lands
of the writ petitioners under the same, has been undertaken just
to benefit certain land holders, thereby excluding their lands from
the acquisition process in question, it was submitted that the
Project Evaluation Committee of the Railway Board in context with
the Examination of Detailed Project Reports revised the alignment
and location of the station proposed earlier, since it was having
technical difficulties and even the project cost was also likely to be
escalated, thereby burdening the public exchequer. Moreover, the
private respondents (writ petitioners) have miserably failed to
refer to any specific instance, to substantiate a completely vague
allegation.
4.4. It was thus submitted that the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court ought to be
interfered with by this Court, since on count of the impugned
order, a Special Railway Project, for which, the Railways
authorities enjoy wider latitude in acquisition and constructions of
the Project for the purpose of time bound completion of the same,
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (11 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
is being stalled indefinitely, which is not in the larger public
interest.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of
the appellant.
5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the process in question has
been clearly actuated with malafide and bias, as thereby without
any cogent and justifiable reason the alignment and location was
changed by the appellant.
5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that by not adhering to
the mandatory provisions of Section 20D of the Act of 1989,
thereby depriving the respondents (writ petitioners) of a fair
opportunity to put forth their stand as against the acquisition
process in question. Futhermore, as per learned counsel, a valid
notification is a pre-requisite for valid land acquisition and any
deficiency in this regard renders the process defective and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5.3. Learned counsel also submitted that even for the purpose of
project of national importance, it has to be ensured that the same
complies with the statutory procedures, whereas in the present
case, the appellant completed failed to adhere to the procedure
mandatory for the purpose of acquisition process in question, thus
rendering the complete process as nullity.
5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the scope of
interference by the Division Bench in an interim order passed by
the learned Single Bench is very limited, as per the settled
proposition of law, more particularly, when the impugned order is
a well reasoned speaking order.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (12 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the impugned order dated
26.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble
Court.
7. At the very outset, this Court observes that at this stage,
where the interim order passed in the pending litigation is under
challenge, this Court would not like to delve into the merits of the
case, and thus, though a plethora of precedent laws have been
cited on both the sides, reference thereof is not indispensable in
the present order, more particularly, as almost the same
precedent laws have already been referred to in the previous
order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court.
8. As is also discernible from the previous order dated
30.05.2025, relevant portion whereof has been reproduced
hereinabove, the core concern of this Court is timely completion of
the project of public importance. It is an admitted position on
record that the Project in question has been declared as a Special
Railway Project under the powers conferred by Clause 37A of
Section 2 of the Act of 1989 vide Gazette Notification dated
18.07.2019, and thus, the same assumes much significance owing
to the fact that it is a huge railway infrastructural project which, if
completed in a time-bound and expeditious manner, would serve
the larger public interest in a much more effective manner. This is
more so when 96% of the Project land has already been acquired
the compensation award has also been made accordingly.
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Special Projects of
National Importance, like the present one, is to further the larger
public interest and thus such a Project, which provides benefit to
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (13 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
the larger sector of the public, cannot be stalled in any manner or
for any reason whatsoever. The public interest is of paramount
importance and, therefore, the Project in question deserves to be
completed in all respects without any delay; as an unnecessary
delay may cause escalation in Project cost, which result into
nothing, but a huge and unwarranted burden on the public
exchequer.
10. This Court in the earlier order dated 30.05.2025, while
indicating the aforesaid concern, has consciously observed that
the landowners’ rights must be protected as the mandatory
provisions of the land acquisition law remain in force by virtue of
the Act of 1989 in this case, and thus, to balance the equity, the
said order was passed by this Court.
11. This Court is thus not inclined to take a different view of the
matter, than the view taken vide the previous order dated
30.05.2025, whereby this Court stayed the effect and operation of
the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 & 26.05.2025, at this
interim stage, which also has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in the aforementioned
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17207/2025.
12. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed and
the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge is quashed and set aside; as a consequence thereof,
the interim orders dated 04.07.2024, 22.07.2024 & 30.07.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions
stand vacated. However, the private respondents (writ petitioners)
would be at liberty to raise all their legal issues, in the pending
writ petitions, before the learned Single Judge. And in view of the
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34922-DB] (14 of 14) [SAW-974/2025]
aforesaid order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the learned Single Bench is requested to hear and decide
the writ petitions in an expeditious manner.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:34:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)