KHIMANAND DEVANAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this group of petitions are the land owners. Their lands have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of development of the Poshitra port area. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said acquisition on the ground that the award under Section 11 of the Act was not made within the period of limitation and that the intimation under Section 12 of the Act was sent after nearly 7 years.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Bhatt has appeared for the petitioners. He has strenuously urged that the acquisition in question is null and void. He has submitted that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was not communicated to the petitioners within the period of two years as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act. The acquisition, therefore, shall lapse. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr, 1961 AIR(SC) 1500 and of this Court in the matter of Leelabehn D/o. Bhailalbhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 1994 1 GLH 32. He has submitted that unless the award is communicated, the award cannot be said to have been made. Admittedly, no communication was sent to the petitioners within two years specified under Section 11 of the Act. He has also submitted that the claim of the State Government that the award was notified in the Office of the Gram Panchayat is unbelievable. He has submitted that notifying or publishing the award in the office of the Gram Panchayat is not a healthy practice. The award, therefore, cannot be said to have been declared or communicated.

(3.) NEITHER of the above referred judgments lays down proposition made by learned advocate Mr. Bhatt. In our opinion, no award validly made under Section 11 of the Act shall lapse for want of communication to the land owner.