KANERIA GRANITO LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ?the Act?) was issued on 25.03.2008. The notification under Section 4 did not mention that urgency clause under Section 17(4) was invoked by the State Government. The petitioner claimed he did not had any knowledge of the notification under Section 4 which was published in newspaper Divya Bhaskar on 07.05.2008. However, when the petitioner came to know about the notification, he filed an objection against the acquisition proceedings with regard to his land, but it has not been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.07.2009. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 9 took place on various dates and the award was made on 23.02.2011 under Section 11 of the Act by the Collector. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:-

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel Mr. S.R. Patel assisted by Mr. M.S. Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Nirag N. Pathak for the respondents.

(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that there is no pleading in the writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings. Again in the writ petition, there is no pleading that any objection under Section 5-A of the Act was filed by the petitioner. Further, it has not been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is in possession of the acquired land and possession of the State Government is symbolic and paper possession. It is stated that the petitioner had filed an application on 11.04.2011 under Section 18 of the Act for making a reference. A writ of mandamus or certiorari could not be issued by this Court directing Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation to allot plots as prayed by the petitioner. In absence of any pleading, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.