GIRISHCHANDRA MAHENDRAPRASAD PATHAK Vs. THE COLLECTOR, VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7, herein, purchased an agricultural land, comprising four adjoining revenue survey numbers, situated at village Sherkhi, District and Sub-District Vadodara, bearing Survey Nos.161/1/A, 161/3, 161/2/A, 161/1/B, admeasuring total Hectare 3-36-42 sq.mts., from respondent No.8 vide registered Sale Deed dated 07.07.1995, which is registered vide Registration No, 3332/1995, On the basis of the said sale deed, the names of the petitioners No.1. 2, 6 and 7 were mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.7220 on 10.08.1995. The said entry, later on, was confirmed in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, their names were mutated in the revenue record, and thereby, the petitioners are shown, in the revenue records, as owners, occupants and possession holders of the said land.

(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners are before this Court, challenging the order dated 13.04.2020, passed by Respondent No.1, as according to them, this is in violation of Section 3H(4) of the NH Act, which provides that, If, any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

(3.) For and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 11 to 14, learned AGP, Ms. Mehta, has urged that this is a second round of litigation between the private parties, both of whom are claiming compensation qua the land bearing Survey No. 161/2/B. She, further, urged that the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, being Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, have been duly complied with and the order passed by the Collector is in accordance with law. It was urged that, pursuant to the same, the concerned respondent was made available due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. However, considering the records supplied for and on behalf of the concerned parties as well as the available Revenue Record, since, there is a dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the land in question and the competent authority being the Revenue Authority it would not be in a position to decide the same, and therefore, the Collector has rightly directed the parties to seek appropriate relief from the competent Civil Court. It is also urged that the amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 6,34,39,134/-, has already been invested in the fixed deposit and the same shall be paid in favour of the party, who ultimately succeeds before the Civil Court.