A division bench of Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu has stayed the operation of the Rajasthan High Court order dated 16 July 2026, which had vacated interim protection granted to 59 agriculturists whose agricultural lands in Chak 21 SDS, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, are proposed to be acquired for establishment of a Forward Composite Aviation Base for the Ministry of Defence.

The Special Leave Petition challenges the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had vacated its earlier order dated 29 January 2026 permitting the affected agriculturists to continue cultivation and directing that their standing crops should not be disturbed.

Advocate HD Thanvi assisted by Advocate Nikhil Kumar Singh appearing for the petitioners, contended that the acquisition proceedings suffered from several alleged violations of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Among other grounds, the agriculturists argued that the mandatory public hearing for the Social Impact Assessment under Sections 4 and 5 was not conducted, the preliminary notification dated 14 November 2023 was issued beyond the prescribed period, and no proper preliminary survey under Section 12 was carried out.

They further alleged that their objections were dealt with mechanically and that no valid Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme was prepared or subjected to the mandatory public hearing contemplated under Section 16 of the 2013 Act.

The petitioners particularly challenged the High Court's decision to withdraw interim protection even though the Division Bench had earlier recorded prima facie concerns regarding the acquisition process.

In its order dated 29 January 2026, the High Court had observed that the entire land of the affected cultivators had been acquired, thereby affecting their livelihood, and had consequently directed that their standing crops should not be disturbed and that they should be allowed to continue cultivation.

The petitioners submitted that the High Court subsequently directed, on 5 May 2026, the Divisional Commissioner to undertake an independent survey. However, by an order dated 22 May 2026, the High Court reportedly found that the affidavit submitted before it had been prepared in a casual manner and that the requisite exercise had not been properly undertaken.

According to the SLP, despite these deficiencies not having been shown to have been cured, the Division Bench proceeded on 16 July 2026 to vacate the interim protection.

The petitioners relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., contending that an interim order cannot be vacated without proper application of judicial mind and a reasoned determination as to whether the circumstances which warranted the interim protection continue to exist.

The SLP also relies upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, to contend that compliance with the statutory procedure prescribed for acquisition is an integral part of the legal authority to deprive a person of property.

The agriculturists further argued that the acquisition's connection with a national-security project cannot, by itself, dispense with mandatory safeguards under the 2013 Act, particularly when the emergency mechanism under Section 40 was admittedly not invoked.

On rehabilitation, the petitioners contended that the report relied upon by the authorities considered only 86 out of 162 identified cultivators, allegedly restricting the scope of the expression "affected family" under Section 3(c) of the Act.

They also argued that the declaration under Section 19(1) dated 12 November 2024 was issued without preparation and public hearing of a valid Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme under Section 16.

The petitioners submitted that vacating the interim protection would expose the 59 agriculturists to dispossession from agricultural lands constituting their livelihood, and that subsequent monetary compensation would not adequately remedy the loss of possession and standing crops.

The Supreme Court has now stayed the operation of the impugned Rajasthan High Court order dated 16 July 2026, thereby providing interim protection to the agriculturists while the challenge before the Supreme Court is considered.