GUNVANTBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 588/3 situated in village Harni of District Vadodara, admeasuring 7 acres 56 gunthas and 74 sq. mtr. According to the petitioner, this land is being used for the purpose of agriculture. The respondents had issued notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30th June, 1991 declaring their intention to acquire the petitioner's land along with other lands. According to the notification, the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of Transport Nagar. According to the petitioner, there are other lands adjoining to the petitioner's agricultural land. It is also the case of the petitioner that the lands situated in village Harni of District Vadodara was designated in the final development plan sanctioned by the State Government in the year 1984 for Transport Nagar and according to him, the lands in question are not situated in the said area which is reserved for in the development plan for the Transport Nagar. The petitioner says that the land was designated in the development plan for the Transport Nagar to be acquired by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority; under Sec. 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976; the Government was moved by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority and the notification was issued by the Government under Sec. 4 and accordingly the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30th June, 1991. The petitioner says that the land owners of the said lands situated in Harni approached the Vadodara Urban Development Authority and the State Government and requested that the notification under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act may not be issued in respect of these lands which are designated in the development plan for Transport Centre. It is then said that under Sec. 12(1) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, a draft plan indicates the use of the land in the area covered by it and that it is to be regulated in the manner in which the development thereof is to be carried out. While referring to Sec. 12(2) and sub-clause (b) and (k), it has been submitted that for the purpose of reservation of the land for the public purpose, the proposal for the reservation of the land for the Union and State, local authority or any other authority or body shall be in accordance with law for the time-being in force. The petitioner has made reference to Sec. 17 of the Act and it has been stated that the State Government has power to sanction draft development plan with or without modification which is submitted along with the general development control regulations which is accompanied with the development plan. The general development control regulations also specify the use of the land in various zones. It is also the petitioner's case that permissible built -up area in the agricultural area is only 2% for the farm house and for other development, it is 5% of the area only and that in case of public and semi-public use, power is given to the competent authority to permit the development to the,extent of 10% only. The petitioner's say is that he was not affected by the draft development plan as his land was in the agricultural zone and the petitioner was doing agricultural operations himself. The petitioner's assertion is that the land in question was not designated for Transport Nagar in the draft development plan; that no acquisition was commenced or continued for the said lands designated in the development plan and the lands which are designated are in agricultural zone and for these lands, the acquisition proceedings had been initiated. The petitioner has alleged that the whole exercise by the State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings were arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further the case of the petitioner that once the development plan is sanctioned, the same shall come into force on the dates specified in the notification and that as per Sec.17(3), the final plan is to be assigned to the concerned Area Development Authority and all other authorities situated in the area of the development plan. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without modification of final development plan, the Vadodara Urban Development Authority asked the State Government to acquire the land under Sec. 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976; while the Vadodara Urban Development Authority had no power to request the State Government for proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act when the land is not reserved in the development plan for the purposes specified in clauses (b), (d), (k), and (n) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the public purpose specified in Sec. 4 notification is for Transport Nagar of Vadodara Urban Development Authority and the said public purpose is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and thereby the Transport Nagar derives the nature of public purpose. If the land is not reserved for the public purpose in the final development plan, there is no authority in the Vadodara Urban Development Authority to request the State Government for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act and that the final development plan is binding. The petitioner's contention is that the public purpose derives from the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and if the lands in question are not reserved for the public purpose of Transport Nagar in the final development plan, there is no authority and power vested in the Vadodara Urban Development Authority for acquiring the land. The petitioner further states that before initiating the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the approval of the final development plan and/or scheme prepared by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority is necessary, and it is incumbent upon the concerned authority before initiating the land acquisition proceedings, there should always be the development plan and/or scheme prepared and approved by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority. The petitioner than complains that no hearing was given to the objectors including the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the State Government issued the notification under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. That the entire exercise is colourable exercise of power and that only with a view to oblige the villagers of Khatambe under the pressure of the then M.L.A., the said lands were de-reserved and the lands of village Harni were included in the impugned notification in the revised final development plan and thus it was the reverse process which was followed by the State Government so as to oblige the then M.L.A. Shri Jaiswal.

(2.) The petitioner has also submitted that he had filed objection under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and had contended that the land was not designated in the development plan for Transport Nagar and that the lands which were in fact designated in the development plan for Transport Nagar are not being acquired. The petitioner has averred that in the objections, an objection was also taken that the Air Force Station was situated near the land in question, and therefore, it was not advisable to acquire the land near the Air Force Station; that the adjoining lands of 800 acres were already acquired for Cantonment and military base, and therefore, the lands under acquisition could not be acquired for the Transport Nagar. It has also been stated that there is a Gas Line going from village Ambaliyara and it was not possible to establish the Transport Nagar; that no land could be developed for any purpose other than the agricultural purpose as per the zoning regulations and as per the development plan. It is also submitted that the land in question is an agricultural land with good water potential, and therefore, it was not advisable to acquire the land. A contention was also raised that under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Officer to give opportunity of hearing and then make a report in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired and notify for acquisition under Sec. 4(1); that the copy of the said report shall be made available to the petitioner; that the inquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is an inquiry of quasi-judicial nature and in the report under Sec. 5-A the objections have to be dealt with and it must show that there is an application of mind. It is also stated that the purpose for which the land has been acquired is not a public purpose as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and the construction of Transport Nagar cannot be called a public purpose; that the Vadodara Urban Development Authority is interested to give the plots and sell the same to transporters and the same cannot be said to be a public purpose. The petitioner also says that the acquisition is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as good agricultural land is being acquired and that the acquisition proceedings are violative of Arts. 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The petitioner has also challenged the notification under Sec. 6 and it has been alleged that no publication of the substance of the declaration has been given in the locality in which the lands in question were situated and that the mandatory requirements of publication under Sec. 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act have not been followed. The petitioner has thus pleaded the violation of Secs. 6 and 4. The petitioner has gone to the extent of telling that in fact the State Government does not need this land for the purpose of Transport Nagar as there is no such traffic in the said area. The petitioner has then made a reference to the Government of India's letter sent to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Gujarat wherein it was given out that one of the installations of the Air Force is Harni Air Field near Vadodara in the State of Gujarat and no construction should therefore come up within 900 mtrs. periphery of any Air Force installation and the land in question belonged to the petitioner comes within the vicinity of 900 mtrs. from the periphery of the Air Force field and no construction can be made thereon.