NATHUJI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned A.G.P., waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondents.

(2.) This Special Civil Application dated 18-2-1997 was filed in this Court on 29-4-1997. The petitioners have come with the case that they are the owners and were in possession of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 56/1, 56/2 and 56/3 admeasuring 2 Acres 29 Gunthas, 2 Acres 7 Gunthas and 2 Acres 18 Gunthas respectively situated in the sim of village Dholakuva, District Gandhinagar since the time of their ancestors and that they were cultivating the same. They also claim that there are corresponding entries in the Revenue Records in their favour. It is also stated that the possession of the said lands alongwith other lands of other owners was taken by the respondents on 23-3-1996 in advance, in anticipation of the acquisition of the said lands for public purpose i.e., for use and construction of Capital Project, Gandhiangar and that at that time the petitioners were assured that they would be given compensation according to law in due course. It is then stated that when the petitioners came to know that other persons, whose lands were taken at the time when the possessions of the petitioners' lands were taken, were being paid compensation, the petitioners inquired about it and they were told that no compensation was required to be paid to the petitioners in respect of the lands in question, which were claimed by the petitioners, on the ground that they were already Government lands, and therefore, no compensation was required to be paid to them. The petitioners case is that they invited the attention of the respondents that on the application of the Personal Service Inam Abolition Act to their locality in 1961, symbolic possession of these lands was taken by the Government by adding the word "Sarkar" over their names in the Record of Rights, but as per the provisions of the said Act on the payment made on 27-7-1964 by the petitioners of the required fee being three times the Government Assessment of the said lands, the same were re-granted to the petitioners and that the petitioners had shown to them the orders to the effect that the lands belonged to the petitioners. The petitioners' say is that they were assured that needful would be done in the matter at the earliest. They were asked to wait. The petitioners allege that they waited for sufficient time as advised by the respondents but no compensation in respect of these lands was paid to them. The petitioners then sent a letter dated 9-2-1993 to the Collector, Gandhinagar. They were then told that their letter dated 9-2-1993 had been sent to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar for necessary action. In October 1993 they were told that their case was sent to the Executive Engineer, Capital Project, Division No. 2, Gandhinagar for necessary action. Even after waiting for sufficient time neither any reply was given nor any relief by way of compensation was granted and, therefore, the present petition was filed. The petitioners prayer is for lawful compensation for the lands bearing Survey Nos. 56/1, 56/2 and 56/3 situated in the sim of village Dholakuva, District Gandhinagar, of which the possession was taken on 23-3-1966.

(3.) On 6-5-1997 when the matter came up before the Court, notice returnable on 23-6-1997 was issued. Thereafter, on 9-7-1997 the Court passed an order that the officers of the Government, who can take decision in the matter may be kept present on 11-7-1997. On 11-7-1997 it was recorded that the officers were present and the parties agreed to sit together, discuss and settle the matter. On 16-7-1997 when the matter came up before the Court, it was given out on behalf of the Government that even assuming that the petitioners were right (which requires investigation), the Government has been in actual physical possession of the lands since 1966 and that the title of the Government is perfect. Even so, at the instance of the Court, the Government had considered the matter and was prepared, without prejudice to their contentions, to pay to the petitioners same compensation and solatium which had been given to other land holders in 1967 with interest upto date. The Court recorded its impression that this will put an end to the matter and it was made clear that if any amount is to be paid, it is to be paid to the persons, who claim to be the land owners and not to the Power of Attorney Holder. The matter was then adjourned to 23-7-1997. Thereafter, on 1-8-1997 the matter was dismissed for the absence of the petitioners. It appears that the petition was then restored through order passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 1556 of 1997. Thus, the restored petition came up before the Court on 14-8-1998 (Coram : Y. B. Bhatt & R. P. Dholakia, JJ.). On this date i.e. 14-8-1998 the Court found that it was the petitioners own case that the respondents were given the possession of the lands by the petitioners as early as on 23-3-1966 i.e. 32 years ago and at best it could be said that possession was given 31 years prior to the filing of the petition. The Court also recorded that it cannot overlook the fact that this is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and that not a slightest iota of legal right under any Statute whatsoever is asserted or claimed in the petition. It was clarified that the lands in question were never under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that voluntary possession was handed over by the petitioners. The Court noticed that there was no controversy that possession was given as early as 23-3-1966 and what was more important was that there was no controversy that the petitioners had voluntarily handed over possession to the respondents of their own free-will knowing it well that the lands were not under acquisition. In view of this factual situation, the Court declined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that the petition suffers from delay, latches and acquiescence stretching over a period of 31 years. The petition was, therefore, dismissed with costs. It appears that thereafter a Review Application was filed by the petitioners being Misc. Civil Application No. 2629 of 1998. This Misc. Civil Application, which was in the nature of a Review Application, was decided by the Court (Coram : Y. B. Bhatt & R. P. Dholakia, JJ.) on 4-5-2000 and the order dated 4-5-2000 records that, as a result of the hearing and discussion it appears that no practical solution and/or settlement is possible between the parties. It, therefore, appears that there is no option but to revoke the earlier order dated 14-8-1998, whereby the main Special Civil Application was disposed of. Accordingly the Special Civil Application was revived and was directed to be heard from the stage where it was when the same was disposed of. The Misc. Civil Application was allowed and the Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. It appears that after the Misc. Civil Application was allowed on 4-5-2000, when the matter came up before the Court on 18-9-2000, the time was sought on behalf of the petitioner for moving an amendment Application. Such time was granted upto 27-9-2000. The amendment was moved on 20-11-2000. The proceedings recorded on 11-12-2000 show that no reply to this amendment was filed by the respondents and the learned A.G.P.. sought time on the ground that the officers concerned were not parting with the record which was in their possession and, therefore, it was not possible for him to file the reply, although the matter had been adjourned 26 times prior to the date on which the amendment was filed. The learned A.G.P., was, therefore, directed to write an official letter to the concerned officers to remain present before the Court alongwith relevant records on 18-12-2000. The learned A.G.P., also submitted that the grievance was raised that the compensation was not being paid, but according to him no compensation was required to be paid because lands in question belong to the Government itself. The learned A.G.P., was, therefore, directed to file the objections in writing on or before 18-12-2000. On this very date i.e. 11-12-2000 Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners, stated that the learned A.G.P. was acting contrary to the instruction of the Government. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners, was directed to substantiate the allegations because the say of the learned A.G.P., Mr. Umesh Trivedi, was that the Officers were acting in connivance with the present petitioners.