SULAIMAN ISMAIL KAIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has, through his son holding his power-of-attorney, invoked Articles 226 and 300-A of the Constitution to challenge as illegal the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for respondent No.3 Company (for short, "the Company"). He owns and holds lands bearing survey No.26/2(part) and No.29/2(Part), totally admeasuring 2 hectares 4 Are and 6 sq. mtrs, which are included in the proceedings for acquisition of total 9-62-45 hectares of land at village Motikhavdi, district Jamnagar.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner in the petition that, earlier by notification dated 09.04.2002, another part of the same land was acquired for the same purpose of extension of housing colony of the Company. That acquisition was challenged by the petitioner in SCA No.514 of 2003 which was rejected by this Court by order dated 23.08.2005. It is averred that that acquisition was also illegal and in excess of the requirement of the Company. Now, notification dated 05.03.2010 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") is published in the Official Gazette and notice dated 15.03.2010 was issued calling upon the petitioner to file objections, if any, under section 5-A of the Act. He filed his objections on 19.04.2010. The petitioner has made vague averments, serious allegations and innuendos against the management of the Company and their relations with higher officers and politicians, without any specific statement of facts and without joining any person as respondent in his individual capacity. The general refrain of the petition is that the Company already possesses large areas of land, does not need additional land and the government is supporting the Company in acquiring large tracts of land for enriching their estate for luxurious living of its officers at the cost of the petitioner. It is alleged that the Company has misused the already acquired lands by utilizing it for thousands of acres of mango plantation and making luxurious buildings for VIPs and guests and to provide golf course, tennis courts, stadium, playground and five-star buildings. It is contended that the petitioner sought information that called for proper enquiry but his objections were not duly considered; and due to anomalies and lapses in the proceeding, the statutory notifications and the acquisition proceedings violated the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, 39, 40 and 41 of the Act as also Articles 14, 19, 31 and 300-A of the Constitution.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the Deputy Collector, Jamnagar has deposed that he has gone through all the relevant records pertaining to the petition and its annexures and placed true facts before the Court. He has stated that the petitioner has presented an absolutely incorrect and deliberately misleading factual picture before the Court, while the acquisition is not only in conformity with the provisions of the Act but also in the national interest, considering the security threat perspective in a refinery. The Company initially established a refinery with capacity of 9 million metric tones per annum (MMTPA) which is increased thereafter to 27 MMTPA. Considering the fact that any refinery anywhere in the country has a huge security threat potential in view of the recent terrorist activities, the refineries are required to have adjoining housing colony even as the security of both the refinery as well as the housing colony is the responsibility of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). When the production capacity was 9 MMTPA, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of land for building a housing colony adjacent to the refinery unit. When the production capacity of the Company was increased from 9 MMTPA to 27 MMTPA and thereafter to 33 MMTPA, the Company required more land for expansion of its housing colony and requested the Government to allot government waste land. After allotment of government waste land on payment of price, the question of acquisition of pocket land arose. The State Government has formed an opinion that destruction/obstruction of, or interference with the refinery premises and its housing colony would be useful to the enemies and, therefore, it has issued notification dated 20.10.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under section 2 (8) (d) of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Government of India notification, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 04.05.1963 declaring the lands mentioned therein to be "prohibited place" for the purpose of the Act. Considering the geographical position of the land in question, which is a pocket land, and considering the boundary of the Company's housing colony, the owners/occupants of the pocket land cannot be given an access to their respective lands in violation of the prohibitory notification.