PATEL ILESHBHAI BABUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the notification dated 29th March 2012 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act') as well as the notification dated 23rd May 2013 issued under Section 6 of the Act by the respondents proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners situated in village Ladol, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana for the purpose of construction of Dharoi canal.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have planned to construct Dharo i Dharo i Right Bank Canal through village Ladol and that in the year 2008 the survey of the agricultural lands of the boundary of village Ladol took place by the employees of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that during the survey, it was decided to construct straight line canal and accordingly survey report was prepared and pursuant thereto excavation work also started. It is further the case of the petitioners that even though Kisan Vikas Trust, Ladol has also th recommended vide its letter dated 11 July 2011 that Dharoi canal can go straight, but the said report has not been acted upon by the respondent authorities. However, due to political influence and with a view to safeguard the interests of the persons whose lands were to be affected by constructing canal in straight line, the plan was changed and it was decided to construct the canal through the agricultural lands of the petitioners. When the petitioners came to know about the construction of the canal work was to pass through the lands of the petitioners, they filed an application under the Right to Information Act seeking details. In response to the same, th the respondents have supplied the details on 8 April 2008. From the said information supplied under RTI Act the petitioners came to know that their lands were included in the canal construction work. The petitioners, therefore, made a representation to the Chief Engineer and Joint Secretary, Irrigation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and other authorities with a request that the alignment of the canal may kept straight and that the alignment has been changed with a view to save the lands of some other local residents. However, no reply to this representation has been received by the petitioners from the authorities and notification th under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29 March 2012 and the same was received by the Gram Panchayat, Ladol and was published on 22nd May 2013. The petitioners filed their objections th under Section 5A of the Act on 28 May 2012 to all the concerned respondents by RPAD. Additional Collector, Gandhinagar has written a letter to the Deputy Collector, Himatnagar to decide the th objection application dated 28 May 2012 made by the petitioners. The petitioners have also raised their objection through their advocate on 22nd June 2012. The petitioners have also demanded the information regarding canal under the RTI Act, but no reply was received by them. The petitioners also made an application to the Sujalam Sufalam programme authorities. However, as no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioners filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2012 after giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, on rd 23 May 2013 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners the notification under Section 6 of the Act was rd published on 23 May 2013.

(3.) IN view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors., 1996 1 GLH 615 wherein the Honourable Apex Court has observed that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose and that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity and legality of the notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6, except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have filed the instant petition.