NATHUIBHAI AMIDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 28/29.08.1998 passed by the learned single Judge in the captioned writ petition whereby, the petition was partly allowed by issuing the following direction in para14;

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Jitendra M. Patel appearing on behalf of the appellants, original petitioner in LPA No.1244/1998 that deceased Nathubhai Amaidas was Tenant of the land bearing Block / Survey No.219/1 admeasuring 01 Acre 16 Gunthas situated in the sim of Village Gadkhol, Taluka Ankleshwar. The said land was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of preparing approach road for Narmada Bridge though proceedings u/s.32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were initiated and pending in respect of the said land. Subsequently, the appellants realized that State Government was not in need of the said land and therefore, they made an application to the State Government for regrant of the land in their favour. Instead, the authority regranted the said land to the heirs of deceasedrespondent no.4 by order dated 27/28.11.1997.

(3.) MR . B.S. Patel learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the other LPA submitted that the appellant is the original landlord of the land in question and that when the purpose of acquisition has gone, the land should have been regranted to the appellant. The learned single Judge ought to have appreciated that if the State Government did not require the land under Clause 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual, the Government could regrant the said land after recovering the market value of land. It was submitted that once the land in acquired, it continues to be Government land and that the Government has full authority to dispose of the said land. When the land has been disposed of in accordance with Clause 328, the respondents have no right to challenge the regrant made in favour of the appellant landlord as they have lost the tenancy right which existed prior to acquisition. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment rendered by the learned single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.