PATEL SHAMJIBHAI LADHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a long history of litigations namely civil proceedings, land acquisition proceedings, tenancy proceedings, revenue proceedings etc. between the parties. At this stage I am concerned with the present appeal which is in respect of the land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) Lands bearing Survey No. 387/A/1 and 387/A/2 and 386 situated in the sim of Modasa were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The plaintiff moved the Collector that the lands which have been acquired were in his possession and therefore he should be awarded compensation. Therefore, the Collector finding the appellant in possession of the land acquired and no other claimant passed the award in favour of the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff again moved the Collector for enhancement of the compensation and requested to refer the matter to the concerned authority. The Collector referred the matter being Reference No. 5/65 to the Civil Judge (SD), Modasa. The Civil Judge (SD), Modasa by the judgment and award dated 31-8-1967 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.6000.00 per Acre of Survey No. 387 and Rs.5000.00 per Acre for Survey No. 386. The State Government filed First Appeal No. 505/68 against the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Modasa before this Court. The Government moved an application being Civil Application No. 1255/68 in First Appeal No. 505/68 to stay operation of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court to direct it to deposit the amount at the enhanced rate and to permit the plaintiff appellant to withdraw the same on furnishing security. Accordingly, the order was passed on 17-7-1968 by this Court and stayed the operation of the judgment and award of the Reference Court directing the State Government to deposit the amount of compensation at the enhanced rate before the Civil Judge (SD), Modasa and the plaintiff appellant was permitted to withdraw the same on furnishing necessary security. Accordingly, the plaintiff no. 1 withdrew the amount of compensation as per the order of this Court after furnishing the security of appellants no. 2 and 3. The appeal was decided by this Court on 23-6-1972 directing the plaintiff to refund 1/3 share of the aggregate in respect of Survey No. 386 (in respect of which the respondents have no objection or concern). The plaintiff - appellant was further directed to deposit 1/3 share of additional compensation as awarded by the Civil Judge (SD), Modasa along with the proportionate interest thereon (respondents claimed this amount). The plaintiff was also directed to pay compensation under the order of this High Court. The plaintiff was directed to pay interest at the rate of 4.5% p.a. on all the three amounts.

(3.) The respondents moved application being Application No. 16/74 vide exh. 1 before the Civil Judge (SD), Modasa for a direction to the plaintiff appellan[t to deposit the amount of Rs.37,274-70 which has been taken away by the plaintiff under the order of this Court. Restitution Application No. 16/74 exh. 1 was rejected on 2-2-74 on the ground that he was not a party in any capacity before the Land Acquisition Officer or Reference Court or in Appeal No. 505/68 before this Court. The plaintiff was also not a party in Darkhast No. 3/68 nor he was a party in the relevant proceedings. Therefore, he has no locus standi to make the application and the application was rejected by the order dated 2-2-1974. The respondents filed Civil Revision Application No. 1199/77 before this Court against the order of the Civil Judge (SD). The said revision application was disposed of by this Court on 1-2-78 with a direction to the Civil Judge (SD) to dispose of the restitution proceedings in Civil Misc. Application No. 36/74 and the Government was directed to pay compensation amount with respect to the land Survey No. 387/A/1 and 387/A/2 to the respondent if he is legally entitled after disposal of restitution application. The State Government filed Civil Misc. Application No. 36/74 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) for restitution u/s 144 of the Civil Procedure Code. During pendency of Civil Misc. Application No. 36/74 the respondents got himself impleaded as a party. The Civil Judge (SD) mentioned that the plaintiff no. 1 has not deposited and the plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 gave their surety. Hence, he was directed the plaintiffs no. 1 to 3 to deposit the aforesaid amount and these facts are in dispute in the present case.