ARVINDKUMAR GANESHMAL DUGAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned basic order dtd. 25/10/2021 and had sought for certain incidental reliefs as contained in paragraph 13, which is reproduced hereunder :-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing City Survey No. 5752 of T.P. Scheme No. 14, Final Plot No. 188 admeasuring 2684.55 sq.mtrs., of Mouje Dariapur-Kajipur registration District and Sub-District Ahmedabad known as "Sagar Sadan"which was originally in the name of Shri Subhkaran Sagarmal Dugar. On 29/8/1970, the said property of 'Sagar Sadan' was purchased by five (5) persons named as (i) Ganeshmal Sagarmal Dugar, (ii) Smt. Sirekumari Ganeshmal Dugar, (iii) Arvindkumar Ganeshmal Dugar, (iv) Ashokkumar Ganeshmal Dugar, (v) Shreyaskumar Ganeshmal Dugar, for which a sale deed was executed between them, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar. The said joint property in which each person is having share of 20% of the said property or 1/5 th share, but subsequently, Ganeshmal Sagarmal Dugar died on 18/2/1976 leaving behind his last testament 'Will' bequeathing his 1/5th (20% share) undivided share in the said 'Sagar Sadan' property to his wife named as Smt. Sirekumari Ganeshmal Dugar. Subsequently, Smt. Sirekumari Ganeshmal Dugar was having 40% share and rest of the above persons were enjoying 20% share in the said property 'Sagar Sadan' each.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the authority ought to have examined the position with respect to the share amongst the persons as specifically pointed out and ought to have considered at least the fact that 60% share is not in dispute in respect of three persons namely Arvindkumar Ganeshmal, Ashokkumar Ganeshmal and Shreyaskumar Ganeshmal, the authority at least ought to have released compensation with regard to the said portion. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further contended that by virtue of provisions contained under Sec. 64(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, within a period of 30 days, the Collector is required to make reference to the appropriate authority in relation to the eventualities mentioned therein which includes liability of a person to receive compensation. According to learned advocate Mr. Gandhi though it is quite visible from the record that only 60% share is required to be disbursed and 40% share not to be disbursed in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6 which is already in dispute and as such, reference deserves to be made before the appropriate authority, but for the reasons best known to the authority, by brushing aside the objections, mandatory provisions appears to have been ignored by the authority and, therefore, has requested for issuance of writ as prayed for. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that the acquisition authority was expected to declare the said award in the name of correct persons as well as to pay compensation in favour of the eligible persons only, especially when there is a dispute about eligibility of a person to receive amount of compensation. As a result of this, such dispute ought to have referred under Sec. 64(1) of the Act to the appropriate authority. So far as issue with regard to discrepancy in the name which was requested to be corrected has also not been paid any attention to. As a result of this, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has requested that the reliefs prayed for be considered in the interest of justice. No other submissions have been made.