VYAS KIRITBHAI CHANDRAKANTBHAI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Vyas Kiritbhai Chandrakantbhai, is before this Court praying that:

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner purchased agricultural land by a registered sale deed, a copy of which is produced at page 95 as a part of the reply by the petitioner to the Mamlatdar in response to his letter dated 8.6.2012 which is produced at Annexure-E running from page 85 to 106. Though the learned advocate for the petitioner did not initially invite the attention of the Court to the contents of Mamlatdar's letter dated 8.6.2012, learned AGP Mr.Rashesh Rindani invited the attention of the Court to the contents of that letter and submitted that the Mamlatdar has replied to the petitioner stating that the amount of compensation is wrongly paid by him and the same should be refunded to the authorities so as to see that the same is paid to the original land owner whose name appears in the communication dated 16.5.2012 of Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana Canal Section No.10, bearing No.J.N.N.U.N.N.V.No.10/AB- 3/J.S./2135/2012 .

(3.) All this is required to be stated because the vehement submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an interested person in the land and, therefore, by virtue of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble the Apex Court, he has entered into the shoes of the original land owner. When this Court is to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person approaching this Court under Article 226 of the constitution, this Court is of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the status and the averments in that regard made by the petitioner, because if this Court even prima facie comes to the conclusion that the document is not a genuine one and it is executed after section 4 notification was published in the year 1994 and the land is purchased from the original land owner only with a view to see that the purchaser is able to strike a fortune by such purchase, the Court can always and is duty bound to deny exercise of its discretionary power in favour of such person.