Mukul Rohatgi vs Tushar Mehta| “Why This Land?” Mukul Rohatgi's Strong Attack in Jaipur Metro Case

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:10]with all powers.

[00:00:15]That means objection is baseless. Japur Metro Rail Corporation Limited Japur Priojin Bumi that is the subject line is required say so the end is I have reproduced the objection I have reproduced the reply but the stand is it is required subject And therefore >> I I agree >> there you know it can't be I agree. What is the answer to the fact that there are three pieces of land around you?

[00:00:55]>> So tell us is there any precedent on this that if there are alternative lands available? Yes.

[00:01:00]>> Yes. Yes. I show you now. Now Lord I'll show you just two more judgments on the line that I gave you. Just give this compilation. Uh just just have I'll finish with this and then in one minute show you in one minute I'll show you.

[00:01:14]Just have a look at this.

[00:01:18]Your lordship will find I showed you one judgment below that is Kaml trading that you have shown >> leave that now I'm showing you bel judgment after kamill called gojar gojar brothers the judgment starts at 662 it was an appeal from kolkata your lordship will find at internal page 19 of this paper book 19 >> page 19 one nine on the top your lordship will find very laconic kind of thing and then he says I overruled now see paragraph 14 a reading of the report shows that in the first four paragraphs the LA recorded the facts relating to acquisition in the sixth paragraph he briefly noted that the objections of the appaland and recorded conclusion the following words hence I overruled the objections filed by the parties and recommend to proceed with acquisition The ambit of scope in section five is considered we do not consider necessary to blood burden the judgment etc. And then finally Mir Lordi will find in paragraph 20 at page 24 of this compilation par 20 if the report of the LO is scrutinized in the light of the principles laid down in the for at the foot of page 24 674 of the report. If the report prepared by LO is suit principle on judgments we do not find difficulty in holding sign and DV were committ serious error by approving the acquisition ignoring the report so so and so and the state government mechanically accepted the report leading to issue. So my second question is also me the state government was also laconic they did not apply their mind now see paragraph 21 in our view the one line [clears throat] above that the state governments also did not apply it mind and mechanically approved the oneline recommendation in our view the non-constitution objection filed in five years denial of effective opportunity of the app the manner in the joint secretary approved the recommendation by the favoring acquisition is reflective of total non application mind by the authority etc etc [snorts] the Second judgment is the next one. Surinda Singh bra that lord she will find at milard page 54 of the compilation par 23 >> 54 >> 54 par 23 middle the heard the objection briefly noted the substance of the objection but did not deal with any one of them and submitted a separate report in relation to the notification with identical observations. So Mulad didn't deal separately with the objection just did it this way. Now the relevant party also will find paragraph 68 at page 74 paragraph 68 a cursory reading of the report of the LU may give an impression that he has applied his mind exactly like this to [clears throat] the objections under 5A and assigned reason for today. But a careful analysis therefore leaves no no doubt that the officer consultant had not applied his mind to the objection and merely created a facade in the observation. He recorded that he had seen the report inspection. He then reproduced the statement object and proceeded to extract some portion of the reply sent by the administrator to surrender Simbra. Next in the context of statements contained in the first line of the paragraph so and so to show us when they record etc et reproduction of the substance of the objection cannot be equated with objective consideration thereof in the submission by the objector thus the vi is large this is how now lordship I wanted 5.3 land is not suitable I Now your lordships in regard to milad land there is yet another judgment of justice sing this is milad women's education trust kindly lord turn to lord page 106 of the report paragraph 5.1 is audio alterum that you have to give him a hearing 5.3 in response to the notice the objector can make all possible endeavors to convince the collector that the acquisition is not for a purpose specific notification issued there that is land is not suitable that more suitable persons of land are available which can be utilized for execution exactly below I am saying so at least I'm saying to apply your mind now bel how is this 5.3 to be considered by the land acquisition officer >> next next parable the collector is due to bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations supported by brief reasons because the 5 is recommendation as to why particular land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objective merit acceptance about other lands. In other words, the recommendation is to reply objective application etc etc. >> Have you alleged malfeed?

[00:06:18]>> Sorry, >> have you alleged malfeed?

[00:06:20]>> No, no, I'm not also of duty. I have nothing against the collector. He actually proceeded rightly. There have been legal malice.

[00:06:30]Well, >> legal malice is not stated at least legal.

[00:06:35]>> Correct. It's actually dereliction. He started on the right note. Objection, reply, rejoin everything was fine. But when it came to this and equally laconic is the state government's order which approved five equally laconic >> you allege legal malice.

[00:06:50]difference is that >> it is the domain of the need to determine or identify which land is to be required for a public purpose.

[00:06:59]>> Here justice singing judgment we will definitely look into but 5.3 opens with this that you have to show that either it is not required for a public purpose.

[00:07:08]It is nobody's case that it is not a public purpose.

[00:07:10]>> It's not of course a public purpose.

[00:07:12]>> Yeah.

[00:07:13]>> Right.

[00:07:13]>> Now >> the second part >> second part it is to be dealt with. He has to look at >> sir we are asking a judgment which throws some light as to how this objection >> today if there is an objection that a b c land is being acquired x y z land are more beneficial >> correct so now we have the answer >> if the authority accepts x >> so the answer would be yeah >> how is it to be dealt with find the guidance >> so it'll have to be in normal normal course of events >> you don't have right now >> we don't have a judgment on how to deal with it but the fact of The matter is below he could have said Mr. uh uh government this man is saying three lands what do you have to say to this you have said this what about this land it is large enough Indian oil had a fire Indian oil is not using what do you say to this you know that's the how he applies his mind he does nothing >> solicitor submits >> that there is an underground pipeline >> there is the reference to that >> there I'm not doubting what he says now blood let me >> he is submitting on instructions but on the ground whether it is really So we can always ask them to file an evidence.

[00:08:22]>> That's not >> say whether it is right or not.

[00:08:25]>> That is not that is >> therefore we have to go to the meat of the objection.

[00:08:29]>> Yeah.

[00:08:30]>> Even if you had been given a hearing there was a valid objection >> which warranted a consideration.

[00:08:35]>> Now there one more. Yes I understand.

[00:08:37]>> Clearly objecting will not do now that 12 years have passed in.

[00:08:42]>> In fact 12 years passage helps me by saying the line has gone up.

[00:08:46]>> Now award is passed. Now what is >> also therefore something more.

[00:08:50]>> Now now please note one thing >> forceful is required >> but they started with 19 hectares.

[00:08:57]They started with 19 hectares in the first plan which is also on record that is belotted page 42 of this affidavit.

[00:09:04]>> They started with 19 hectares but immediately published below for 27 hectares which is my land. They started the requirement was 19 hectares of my land. My land is 27. They wanted 19 they published straight away night 27. Now bel the line has gone further and that is why bel that statement that I'm going to have spare land which I will let out for commercial purposes the single jord held in my favor he quashed it that map you just >> yes come back to the map >> entire thing now I am saying one more thing if you require some part of the land >> here where are the alternative lines >> yes yellow on the right hand side on the yellow >> all yellow >> all yellows All yellows from throughout and the yellows which are where melody ends on the right side are the most appropriate become new >> to whom does it belong this does not which land belongs to IO which land belongs to Rico where do we find that >> but that you should have mentioned in your objection an objection is not considered must be there in your petition that this parcel of land.

[00:10:20]>> You remember Rico, Indian oil, >> IO and another third party. There were three three lands you identified.

[00:10:25]>> Yes.

[00:10:26]>> So find out from here and tell us.

[00:10:29]>> This one I >> land. Yes. I'm pointing out >> IOC land you rule it out because if it is pipeline going underneath the surface I being taken by surprise I answer >> we can find out >> which which part of that land is under the pip. You have to identify then which is the IUC land here.

[00:10:49]>> Yeah. I I can I can show you right now.

[00:10:51]>> Petitioner's land.

[00:10:52]>> I marked the petitioner's land. You remember?

[00:10:54]>> No. Petitioner's land. We have >> just next to that.

[00:10:57]>> Sithura.

[00:10:58]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:10:59]>> Yes.

[00:11:00]>> Yes. This this land >> just next to it.

[00:11:03]>> Yellow.

[00:11:03]>> Your lordship has this not this is my land.

[00:11:05]>> Uh-huh. Just next to it.

[00:11:07]>> Just next. Yes. Sithapura has now whose land is >> IOC >> IOC >> now question arises >> if this is uh pipeline is there >> yes >> you know it may not be feasible for >> no no let's go one by one >> next next >> just give me one second one second if there is a pipeline going through one part some part may be available you can take away some part of my land I'm not saying don't take away anything you can if if one can have a compromise you could take away below some part of my land >> must have a compre comprehensive land for it cannot be >> that you make a statement in the Supreme Court there is a pipe and we take it to your suggestion that one part from you and another part from IOC that cannot become and ultimately after expansion the last yellow is the one which is important not this anymore that of course will not that always happens will In every land acquisition act in larger public >> but the law without this law >> in larger public interest a project is coming up and whatever loss you will suffer you will become >> then there would be no case of land acquisition deposit in every case and you can't have a better case than this to show that there is complete dereliction of duty of 5A complete and done without single just quite that is your petition in page 133.

[00:12:43]>> 133.

[00:12:44]>> Yes.

[00:12:59]>> You succeeded on what ground before the single judge?

[00:13:02]>> Five.

[00:13:03]>> No objection. No hearing.

[00:13:04]>> No hearing.

[00:13:06]No decision, no hearing.

[00:13:09]>> State doesn't decide.

[00:13:11]>> The court was not sent to >> and it flawed the government's decision also after filing.

[00:13:16]>> Where is the allegation uh that A B C plots are available?

[00:13:22]>> Land >> which are more or which are better suited for the public purpose. Which paragraph said so?

[00:13:29]>> Yes. You will find paragraph 12 at page 145.

[00:13:35]12 at 145.

[00:13:36]>> Yes. At the foot below at the foot we attached a report. Report came to the conclusion that the land required by JMRC for car depot at Sithapura is much more than the actual.

[00:13:48]The report says the following alternative rams are willed. Durapur agricultural farm Indian oil terminal Sithapur abandoned. Sithapur exhibition ground storm mart which is once a year.

[00:13:57]Bat petroleum sithapur abandoned.

[00:13:59]Hindustan petrol terminal sithapur. It is observed in the report is I gave a report that there is no need of any other land for corporate on the same route again where more adequate land is available at Dura report says that various pieces of land refer to are very close to terminal station more suitable cardipo than the land of the petitioner.

[00:14:14]The report says this that and the other then lordship will find I gave details of the metro corridor.

[00:14:24]I gave full details >> and then I say lord without any verification they have in hot haste tried to >> was any counter file to this expition >> you have it here we don't >> it's not here >> it was filed me it's possible >> it was not filed >> it was filed but it was not >> part of the records >> it's not >> you have it with you you give us because we'll have to decide on the basis of academic evidence >> yes Whatever is pleated and whatever is >> there is an affidavit below filed by them before the single judge which can throw >> single judge.

[00:15:01]>> Yeah, that is below in the additional affidavit filed by me. Take up that >> I'm sorry it is on record. It is on the reply your file is not on. No reply is not on a C base 43 of the additional affidavit of the petitioners bel additional affidavit by Japur Metro >> Japur Metroid is that the final points are not >> this is page 43. No, their addition. No, there is only one compliance affidavit file by.

[00:15:38]>> No, no, the other one petitioner's affidavit additional.

[00:15:42]>> Yes.

[00:15:43]>> So here where is their page 43?

[00:15:48]>> This is our additional not will find paragraph two.

[00:15:57]The matter had traveled to the Supreme Court in an interlocatory.

[00:16:01]>> Yes. uh matter the Supreme Court directed pleadings to be completed.

[00:16:05]>> This is just an additional affidavit.

[00:16:07]Yes.

[00:16:07]>> That means they had filed comprehensive I have the copy. I'll get it in 10 minutes. It's being please give it to us.

[00:16:14]>> Yes sir.

[00:16:14]>> Now para formula >> at the submitted there before this honorable code that the starting point as well as the ter this is important termination point of the second phase of Japur metro are fixed and final and are not being changed. They have been completely changed today on the left side and the right side. Now last last line of that page below and since the terminating point of the second phase at Sithapura is unchanged. Therefore the requirement of the petitioner's land continues to be indispensable.

[00:16:46]This is no longer relevant. This is no longer the issue today. You have gone 20 km ahead.

[00:16:52]>> See belagraph six. The land in question cannot be left out since it is the only suitable and available land near the terminating point of the metro. Looking to his location, nature is used. The land urgently required etc. Today all that is gone. Much water has flown. No.

[00:17:12]>> Yes.

[00:17:13]>> That is how goes on. So you are saying is very much required because it's a start of the terminating point. Neither the start point me nor the terminating point.

[00:17:24]the counter filed by them, the rejoinder filed by you.

[00:17:26]>> Yeah.

[00:17:27]>> To the original affidavit as well as the additional affidavit.

[00:17:29]>> Right.

[00:17:30]>> Right.

[00:17:30]>> Right.

[00:17:31]>> And please put in your written submissions by Friday.

[00:17:35]>> Yes. Mr. >> only only one more thing. Now the single judge squashed it. Matter went to DB.

[00:17:42]Just take me one minute for the DB and then I'm done.

[00:17:48]Your lordship will fine.

[00:17:53]>> [clears throat] >> Lord submissions go on. Just come Lord straight to paragraph 34.

[00:18:06]Once the LAO submitted his report stating that the now this is very important please see the nuance. stating that the objections were rejected on the ground that the land was being acquired.

[00:18:21]The same must be treated as sufficient on his part. This is completely wrong.

[00:18:25]Contrary to law is contrary to a reading of that Hindi document. He was not required to deal with each and every objection in the absence of representation of the Britisher when the matter was taken up for rejoinder. This is also wrong. I appeared 10 times on the rejoinder date. I didn't appear.

[00:18:42]That doesn't mean lord that you would knock out completely. Now further lord it is apparent that the lo heard the submissions and thereafter fixed the matter. So he heard the submissions of jaur metro fixed it for 18th mill for final report. If the diligent in pursuing they would have made inquiries however appears replace approve the court only of the report was submitted and I am saying lord hearing is one the report is flawed even if I didn't go the report is flawed. The the the stamp of approval by the government is equally flawed. And then me lordship will find C par 38 mil at the next while we uphold the acquisition we cannot lose the fight side several trees are growing which require protection modern technology have been developed for transplanting large trees such trees can be relocated this is not the way Lord it is done and then the direction is at the last page of the judgment at paragraph 45 46 in view of the above we allow the appeals no decision discussion about alternate lands that metro is no longer ending there. Metro is going further.

[00:19:44]The requirement we require you to put in your written submission. What are the pleadings? How they have been dealt with by I will >> and how you have dealt with in the rejoined.

[00:19:53]>> Yes, Mr. Solici.

[00:19:55]>> Yes, please come.

[00:19:56]>> I have me order of the learned single judge.

[00:19:59]>> Mr. We'll close hearing today. So if you want to put in a rejoinder, please >> I will not problem because we are not going to keep it on Friday. We are hearing it finally. Finally may not here my friend he's also a >> anyone should be there yes >> page 184 this is how I lost before the learned single judgment >> 184 >> yes the opportunity of hearing not given opportunity of hearing was not given at the stage of section 5A that is the ground my lord para 4 I'm not reading it my lord I'll just read my lord one part the non- petitioners have also asserted that adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner under section 5A of the act their advocate appeared but later on the date fixed for hearing they themselves voluntarily remained absent for which the respondents cannot be held liable. Then your offices may kindly come to page. This is the contention me which is recorded uh page 197 para 18.

[00:21:14]In the present case, the petitioners had submitted their objections within the prescribed limitation period. There is no dispute in this regard. The objection of the learned council for the petitioner is that they were not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing in the matter that no notice was issued for this purpose nor was any late fix for personal hearing and the suddenly and abruptly without hearing the report has been submitted to the state government in an arbitrary manner and without complying with legal provisions. On the contrary, it is submission of the learned advocate general and the learned council for respondence that peruser of the order makes it clear that petitioners had participated etc. 21 my lord thereafter at par 20 the court records me various minutes which were your lordship say lord were shown earlier I'm I'm skipping that 21 from the forced order passed by the land acquisition officer it is clear that after objections were submitted the reply was obtained from JM Jaipur metro by order dated so and so on receipt of the objections of Jaipur metro a copy thereof in terms of the principles of natural justice was made available to the advocate for the petition practitioner who wished to submit a rejoinder that is subsequent statement and for that purpose date 9412 was fixed on 94 2012 the advocate for the objector did not appear and consequently the rejoinder was not placed on file following this proceeding on 9412 it was the duty of the lead acquisition officer to fix at least one date for personal hearing or argument however instead of doing so an order was passed for the file to be sent to the state government as a report under section 5A of the act and no date was fixed on this point.

[00:22:54]There is not even any mention in the orders that others affected persons were also heard on so and so. No date was fixed. Nevertheless, in an abrupt manner, the file was brought up on the date of presentation and an order was passed for recommendation of of the objections. So the same is me uh ultimately the finding but to which I I rely upon one judgment where your lordships have taken the view that is aircraft employees housing society only one paragraph it's a settled position but just in the context of the par para five at page 479.

[00:23:51]The next question your lash gets. The next question is whether the view taken by the high court what that the inquiry under section 5A is visiated in law is correct. In our view the high court has not correctly interpreted the legal position. It is seen that the respondent was given an opportunity thrice to file his objections. At his instance the case was posted for hearing on so and so on which date neither the respondent nor his council was present. Under these circumstances the respondent having failed to present himself either in person or through council on so and so.

[00:24:21]The omission to give right of hearing to him does not wish inquiry under section 5A. On the con on the other hand the respondent denied himself of the opportunity of being heard. Therefore, inquiry under section 5A is not visiated by the error of law. Consequently, the declaration under section six is not visiated by any error of law. But there >> in this specifically, it was posted for hearing in this case.

[00:24:47]>> You have your turn sir.

[00:24:49]>> Very well sir. Now lord so far as me the division bench is concerned when the impug order page 10 para 26 and 27 your lordship gets >> the learn single judge has noted that the lao issued appropriate notice to the objectors to raise their objections to the proposed acquisition. Not only did the RIT petitioner submit their objection, but the JMRC also filed his response there too. After considering all relevant aspects, the LO proceeded to submit his report and rejected the objections. However, we find that the learned single jet proceeded to examine the report of LO as if sitting in appeal. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction in a read petition, the court is concerned only with the decision-m process and not the actual decision. Then my lord judgments are quoted and rest my learned friend has read but my lord we are lord at page parah 46 page 18 these judgments help either side 29 to 32 >> no there there are lord judgments my lord I I may may I may read >> does it support either way >> yes yes it's a power of judicial review >> judicial review on the judicial on judicial very well then not required.

[00:26:14]>> Yes. there for but uh uh this aircraft M which I just now pointed out was placed page 13 uh >> page 13 >> page 13 para 32 in almost a similar case from Karnataka reported in aircraft employees so and so the para five which I read for your lawship's consideration is malord >> that judgment >> that judgment was placed for me consideration >> and so far as the trees are concerned Me as I pointed out the closure we have the video also we'll place it on record. It appears there are trees but between the trees there are shrubs. So the court has said they relocate the trees and para 46 at page 18. However the trees shall be transplanted and regrown at appropriate sites to be earmarked by the Jaipur development authority and the forest department. At the same time, the JMRC shall also undertake additional plantation by growing twice the number of trees being relocated from the concerned land in areas designated for forest in in around Jaipur as well as near water bodies and wetlands. This is how the high court balances the equities. So far as my learned friend wants me to assist your loss with one more judgment par 37 hana page 15 parah 37 it's quoted >> 37ish Gupta case >> abhishek gupta the I I'll place the judgment on record I'll read the relevant part from this judgment itself the choice of different terminologies for the role of the collector and the role of the government makes it evident that the legislature intended different roles for each of them. The collector has no power to decide the case and can only give recommendations to the government. It is the government which is the ultimate arbiter for the det for determining whether the land is to be released or uh not. No other authority can dictate the outcome of section 5A proceedings. Neither the collector nor land owner. While the collector's report can form the basis of such decision, the government is free to independently evaluate and take a final decision. It says that 5A is basically in substance recommendatory in nature. It's not deciding the list between the parties.

[00:28:37]Paras 7 is concerned. I don't wish to read. We have read and reread. But what possibly lord the collector wishes to convey or or say is this.

[00:28:53]Mr. Rodgi has given this compilation.

[00:28:56]>> Yes ma'am.

[00:28:57]>> You see the first page the heading.

[00:28:59][clears throat] >> Yes.

[00:29:01]>> Lo is a qua judicial authority at what stage what stage does he perform qua judicial functions? Five way sir >> if if in terms of this judgment if it is only recommendatory he's not deciding any list between the parties where is the question of judicial authority so you will have to just indicate the relevant uh stage at which the land acquisition officer functions in a qua judicial capacity >> I will also me undertake that exercise and the judgments even if me I find which is against me will be placed because your lordship's law will be me binding collectors the LAO seems to have not said this in par 7 this is a patch where from A to B the first phase is over now it is from new phase from B to C we need one yard it's called >> depot where the metro would stop metro would stand would be clean metro would be repaired if required so keeping in mind what is the best location for doing this? He says that DMRC has and in consultation with DMRC JMRC has particular has identified a particular land and therefore it may not be possible for me to second guess it. Lord I I must say he has not said in the words which I am putting these are my words but this is what he wants to say that there is a systematic planning which has gone into and therefore there is no point in secondguing it.

[00:30:38]These are my submissions. I'll also supplement with just couple of submissions.

[00:30:44]The judgment area like to see the video.

[00:30:48]>> No, no, the pictures are there.

[00:30:50]>> Yes sir. But the video lots directed wrong video has to be which is a pen drive.

[00:30:55]>> We have we have filed [clears throat] it. That's already filed >> already in a pen drive. We have given very well. We'll look >> with our >> Yes. Only on questions of law facts.

[00:31:03]>> Yes. On question of law. The judgment which they have cited the aircraft employee paraph 5 it says it is seen that the respondent was given opportunity thrice to file his objection. In my case I have already filed my objection.

[00:31:16]>> Yes >> at his instance the case was posted for hearing on this this on which date the respondent nor his console was present.

[00:31:26]So after he filed specifically notice and on request date was fixed for hearing. That is what 5A say. 5A say you have to be personally heard and for personal hearing there has to be notice.

[00:31:38]Doesn't matter if I didn't appear on the date of rejoinder but notice has to be issued for personal hearing. I might not file objection but still notice has to be issued for personal hearing. This can't be dispensed. That's one.

[00:31:48]Secondly, Malot trading >> Kamill trading mal the compilation I gave >> malot this is a compilation par four I wanted to read >> page three par four >> par five >> par five >> par five comel trading the second land acquisition collector issued another notice dated this fixing the date of hearing of the objection on this by a letter dated this dappelant again request tested for adjournment till after this on the ground that in con its constitutive attorney was unable to attend the and advocate was out of station. Accordingly, according to the appent, while they were waiting for the further communication about the date of hearing, the state government issued declaration under this under section 6.

[00:32:35]In my case, no hearing. He closes the matter. No next date. Forget hearing.

[00:32:41]There is no next date on record.

[00:32:43]Suddenly file comes up on 187 and objections are decided. Now DB says that your objections rejected the objections. No, he did not decide the objections. He says I'm not considering the objections. So there's no decision on objections. It went to the uh state government. State government how how does state state government deals with it?

[00:33:07]Just one page I wanted to mark. That is page 115. I [clears throat] lord wanted to mark it.

[00:33:15]115. Yes.

[00:33:16]>> This is the report of Lao. The third line. Therefore, we were reading the Hindi version. There's no uh we can read it from there. Therefore objection application of the applicants may kindly be dismissed in light of the above mentioned facts. This is report malad draw a line here above all this right from page one it is a cut copy paste of exactly verbatim there's no translation nothing it is in Hindi both these documents are translated it is verb only his consideration is next three paragraphs that is where he applies his band if at all and says I'm not considering and now my lord may see what the government does Yes my lord may I have page 125 how government decides my ob has not decided somebody has to decide my objection let's see how what govern does 125 >> 63 may kindly produce par this this by report sending report under section 58 it has been recommended that notification under section 6 may kindly be issued with regard to the land under acquisition situated at this this this under the land acquisition The last date is this for the publication of notice under section six is required to be issued at the level of the government within a period one. Therefore prior to the set date notification section issued. So time was passing out. Next may kindly peruse this this uh section 6 is required to be made till 107 for land acquisition of JMRC otherwise proceeding of acquisition will lapse. Therefore meeting is required to be held as soon as possible. Then next this is how it is decided. I am of the view middle of the page valot 126. I am of the view that the proposed land is to be acquired is essential for the purpose over which it is being acquired looking into the length of metro line and number of stations in phase two which was prior in time visav phase one and provision taken in DPR. Hence the action of the land being acquired appears we may accept the report. So who has applied the mind and to any of my objection objection >> only one 5A 5A says >> by Friday give a soft copy of the relevant resolutions in Hindi because we are not too happy with the translation.

[00:35:31]Yes ma'am.

[00:35:32]>> We'll ls can get it translated.

[00:35:36]>> That is why you give it in a soft copy the uh recommendation as well as all the departmental notings with the final order of one one aspect which factually possibly my learning friend is not right. 198 that we were not even aware of the date and the file suddenly comes up. 198 I skipped it thinking that that this at least will not be disputed.

[00:36:01]Please see me the order dated 93 94 and 185 passed by the L as follows. The lordship gets then 93 file presented the reply of Jaipur Metro Railway Corporation regarding objection of other Kartedas. Karted means tenure tenure holders land holders has been received and placed on file. The objector's advocate appeared in order to obtain the copy of the reply received from JMRC on the objection received and was given a copy of the reply received from JMRC.

[00:36:30]The file is to be presented on 9th April 2012 in anticipation of receipt of rejoinder of objector's advocate. Then 9th April file presented the objector's advocate did not appear nor was any rejoinder to the objection submitted.

[00:36:45]>> So what is the >> it's wrong malert that notice was not given. It was kept on 9th of April for that.

[00:36:51]>> What they say is that on 9th of April 2012 the date was fixed for filing of the joint. Yes ma'am.

[00:36:57]>> And no separate date of hearing was fixed. This is what they are two according to them two stages at which notice should be issued. last submission if they at all need >> they can file a fresh they can issue a fresh urgency notification under section 40 of the new act or 17 of the old one they can also lord place the reply me on reply file before the high one it has come please it >> metro metro metro metro is filing his reply your rejoinder file before the high court by Friday metro and the state government Both replies me are filed and I'm not saying that this may have any bearing with your lordship's final decision but the award is passed. It's not that it becomes fate to comply. Your lordship can set aside status code till we deliver the judgment.

[00:37:46]>> Yes. Yes. Yes. It cannot be maintained and we have deposited 12 cr by way of compensation very well to Hurry.