MOHANLAL NANABHAI CHOKSY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, four in number, have invoked Articles 14, 19, 300-A and 226 of the Constitution for quashing of notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the LA Act") and declaration to the effect that acquisition by the respondents of the lands of petitioners for the purpose of establishing vegetable market is per se bad and illegal. After filing of the petition in May 1991 and enjoyment of interim relief for so many years, the petitioners had dragged their feet in proceeding with the hearing of the petition, according to the record. Ultimately, the petition was finally heard and dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.02.2002 by an elaborate judgment. That judgment was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and that Civil Appeal No.7268 of 2004 is partly allowed and disposed on 04.10.2010 with the following direction:

(2.) It would appear from the above record that, in substance, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their lands mainly on the basis that the lands could not be acquired for the purpose of establishing a vegetable market by Surat Municipal Corporation ("SMC" for short). According to the petition, the petitioners claimed to be owners of various parcels of land situate in Ward No.4 of City of Surat, in all admeasuring 7168.09 sq. mtrs., in the area known as Chauryasi Taluka. It was averred that the lands in question were fully constructed and occupied by many tenants. The petitioners have alleged mala fide on the part of SMC in deciding to acquire the constructed and populated properties of the petitioners while de-notifying or releasing many other properties from acquisition. It is contended that a vegetable market was to be constructed by Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Surat ("APMC" for short) and there are other vegetable markets nearby. In spite of that, notification dated 07.12.1989 was issued under section 4 of the LA Act; and the petitioners have filed their objections thereto on 12.3.1990. It is alleged that in spite of objections and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case, notification dated 08.02.1991 has been issued under section 6 of the LA Act and hence they have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) By filing an affidavit-in-reply of the Town Planner of SMC, it is averred that the land in question is placed under reservation for vegetable market in the development plan prepared by Surat Urban Development Authority ("SUDA" for short) under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("T.P.Act" for short), which has become final. Then the land has to be acquired under the provisions of the T.P.Act. The land which is reserved for public purpose has to be acquired under the LA Act and "Sardar Market" is not within the purview of SMC. It is denied that proper opportunity was not give to the petitioners to make their representation under section 5-A of the LA Act. It is averred that most of the lands in question is open land and the existing structures are very old. All the constructions on the land are uauthorized and made without obtaining any permission from the SMC. It is denied that acquisition of land is mala fide or in colourable exercise of power, as alleged. It is submitted that Sardar Market is a wholesale market situated on a ring road and it is very far from the lands in question which are located in the internal area. SMC has decided to acquire the land for a retail vegetable market to be run by it as per the need of the public. It is denied that there are numerous tenants in the land in question.