RAMANLAL C DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the owners of certain lands which were notified under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as land likely to be required for public purposes. This was followed through by a notification issued under Sec. 6 of the said Act. The latter notification was challenged by the petitioners-land owners by taking various proceedings, obtaining interim relief in such proceedings, etc. Apparently as the State felt that the delay in the completion of the acquisition proceedings would frustrate the very purpose of acquisition the government decided to drop the acquisition and ultimately implemented this decision by taking appropriate action whereby the petitioners' lands were released from acquisition.

(2.) The petitioners thereupon felt that on account of the pendency of the acquisition proceedings, there was a restriction on their right to develop the land and, therefore, they had suffered substantial damages. Petitioners, therefore, made an application to the Collector together with the claim for compensation in respect of the damage suffered by them and required the Collector to determine the relevant compensation due to them under Sec. 48(2) of the said Act. The Collector, after due process of law, decided the said application on merits and concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. It may be noted at this stage that this decision of the Collector was specifically a decision under Sec. 48(2) of the said Act and that it was a decision on merits by a speaking order.

(3.) The petitioners were apparently dissatisfied with the aforesaid order. With a view to challenge the same, apparently believing that the remedy available to them would be a reference under Sec. 18 of the said Act, the petitioners filed an application to the Collector requiring him to make reference to the District Court under Sec. 18 of the said Act. It is also required to be noted at this stage that although they had approached the Collector at this stage of the matter by way of an application purporting to be one covered by Sec. 18 of the said Act and requesting the Collector to refer the matter to the District Court as a Reference under Sec. 18, in fact and substance what the petitioners sought to do was to challenge the order of compensation passed under Sec. 48(2) of the said Act. A question would then arise as to whether a Reference would lie to the District Court under Sec. 18 of the said Act, in respect of an order passed under Sec. 48(2) of the said Act or whether the remedy of the person affected would lie elsewhere. However, I refrain from entering into this question for only one reason viz. that this question does not directly arise in the present revision.