GANGABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, the first of whom has passed away and whose two daughters are brought on record, have invoked Arts. 14, 19(l)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution for the prayers that the award dated 14-2-1991 of I/c Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) be set aside on the ground that delay has vitiated the acquisition and it has lapsed, with the consequential relief of setting aside notices dated 20-12-2003 under Sees. 11(2) and 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since, the impugned award dated 14-2-1991 is made in respect of various parcels of land acquired for the purpose of expansion of industrial estate of respondent No. 3, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (G.I.D.C), and the present dispute is but possession was not to be taken. It is specifically averred in the further affidavit dated 21-3-2007 of the O.S.D. that :

(2.) 2. Thus, even as possession of the lands in question was never taken from the petitioners, the award dated 14-2-1991, under Sec. 11 of the Act, was made while the petitioners were not present. Thereafter, vide letter dated 4-1-1996, the O.S.D. informed Manager of G.I.D.C. that the award was declared on 14-2-1991 and the instruction dated 7-2-1992 not to take possession of the acquired lands was withdrawn by Government letter dated 22-8-1995. Therefore, the addressee was instructed to take up the matter of paying compensation and taking possession. Pursuant to such instruction, the O.S.D. had arranged a camp at another village and the land-holders having refused to accept the compensation and hand over the possession, a panchnama in that regard was prepared at village Umber. At that time, Talati-cum-Secretary of Sachin had reported that the land-holders of village Sachin had also refused to accept the compensation and hand over possession of land. The O.S.D. also stated that the land allotted by G.I.D.C. to D. & G.D.C. was not fully utilized and such lands were likely to be handed over to private builders by D. & G.D.C. Thus, the factum of non-payment of compensation and not taking possession of the lands in question was recorded in the contemporaneous document dated 4-1-1996. The other documents relied upon by the O.S.D. include a disputed panchnama dated 15-5-1996 made by a peon of Sachin Gram Panchayat to state that possession of the land was sought to be taken and compensation was sought to be paid by informing the land-holders in advance but none of them had remained present and they could also not be called from their house as their houses were found to be closed.

(3.) With the above backdrop of facts, it was contended for the petitioners by learned Senior Counsel Ms. Ketty Mehta, appearing with learned Counsel Mr. S. G. Amin, that the land acquisition proceeding in respect of the lands of the petitioners was obviously in violation of several mandatory provisions of the Act and the main purpose of the Act to provide for payment of compensation on the basis of market value of the land was defeated. She submitted that inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 years in offering the compensation had vitiated the acquisition and such acquisition must be declared to have lapsed. It was further submitted that, even at the outset, the acquisition was in colourable exercise of power insofar as it was initiated not for any public purpose, but to use the good offices of G.I.D.C. as an instrument to favour a company with private interests, without resorting to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act. It was further submitted that, even now, more than 50 hectares of land of D. & G.D.C. near the petitioners' land was lying vacant and unused. Learned Counsel relied upon several legal provisions and precedents, which will be discussed hereunder.