BHANUBEN DURLABHBHAI PATEL 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 Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution for the prayers that the award dated 14.02.1991 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 sections 11 (2) and 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the impugned award dated 14.02.1991 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 (GIDC), and the present dispute is raised in respect of lands of only three block numbers, the challenge is taken to be restricted to acquisition of those three parcels of land bearing Survey Nos.265, 204 and 267/1 of Block Nos.284, 268 and 273, comprising total 26,886 sq. mtrs. Situated at village Sachin, district Surat, out of the total 11,23,238 sq. mtrs. of land acquired for GIDC. Initially, while issuing notice herein on 29.12.2003, ad-interim relief was granted restraining respondents Nos.2 and 3 from taking possession of the land of the petitioners pursuant to the said notice dated 20.12.2003. After appearance of and hearing the respondents, petition was admitted and ad-interim relief was confirmed on 03.09.2004 in view of the fact that possession of the land was with the petitioners till that date. Rule was, however, made returnable on 06.10.2004.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published in the Official Gazette on 11.02.1988 for acquiring nearly 11 hectares of land for expansion of GIDC Industrial Estate. Even prior to that, GIDC had agreed to allot 11,23,238 sq. mtrs. of land to Diamond & Gem Development Corporation (D&GDC), which has subsequently joined herein as respondent No.4. Out of the land agreed to be transferred to D&GDC, 9,76,777 sq. mtrs. of land acquired earlier were already handed over by GIDC to D&GDC on as is where is basis at the rate of Rs.20.40 ps. per sq. mtr; and for the remaining parcel of land, acquisition in question was initiated in the name of GIDC. Notification under section 6 was published on 01.02.1989. At that stage, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.2666 of 1989 to challenge the acquisition and that petition was dismissed on 15.4.1991, rejecting the contentions that the lands already acquired were unused and some lands were released from acquisition after the notification under section 4 of the Act.

(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 GIDC 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&GDC near the petitioners' land was lying vacant and unused. Learned counsel relied upon several legal provisions and precedents, which will be discussed hereunder.