NAGJIBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA) Rule. Mr. PR Abichandani ld. AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Mazmudar ld. Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 2. With the consent of the parties,the mater is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. KM Sheth ld. Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. PR Abichandani ld. AGP for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Mazmudar ld. Advocate for respondent no. 2.

(3.) It is the say of the petitioner that upon acquisition of his land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for constructing the Narmada Canal in the Bharuch region, award dated 22.1.2001 came to be made. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, hence, he submitted application to the Collector to make reference under sec. 18 of the Act. It is further stated by the petitioner that later on in respect of trees standings on the said land, additional award dated 13.6.2003 was made. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded to him, he, therefore, submitted an application to respondent- Collector under the provisions of sec. 18 with a request to make reference to the District Court. The application is dated 6.8.2003. The same was rejected by respondent- Collector by order dated 15.9.2004 on the ground that since subsequent award was only with respect to the trees standing on the land in question and it was not by way of supplementary award, reference could not be made against such award. According to him, the petitioner could directly approach the civil court. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that it is erroneous and against the provisions of sec. 18 of the Act. Mr. KM Sheth ld. Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that at the time when the main award was passed, the compensation with regard to 39 Barry trees standing on the land was not determined, that was subsequently determined and the compensation was awarded by way of additional award. It was, therefore, incumbent upon respondent- Collector to make reference.