LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-26

NATHALAL VAJSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 14, 2006
NATHALAL VAJSINH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the award dated May 4, 2005, rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jamnagar, in Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 2002 under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) on the ground that earlier consent award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as contemplated by Section 11(2) of the Act and it could not have been treated as void ab-initio at the instance of decision dated May 2, 2005, taken at the secretariat level of the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department, Government of Gujarat.

(2.) The petitioner was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 127/2 admeasuring 19425 sq.mt. situated at village Sai Devaliya, Taluka: Bhanvad, District: Jamnagar. A proposal was received by the State Government to acquire the land of the petitioner with other lands for the public purpose of Veradi-2 Jal Sampati Yojana. On consideration of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Sai Devaliya were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. In order to facilitate acquisition proceedings and avoid future litigations, the State Government had constituted a high level committee by Resolution dated February 10, 1999, which was subsequently amended by another Resolution dated December 15, 1999, and the committee was requested to recommend the rates at which compensation was to be paid to the claimants after entering into negotiations with them under Section 11(2) of the Act. The meeting of the high level committee was convened on December 13, 2000, and the rates at which consent award were to be made were indicated with reference to lands to be acquired for Veradi-2 Irrigation Scheme. The recommendations made by the high level committee were accepted by the State Government and therefore, the Government of Gujarat passed a Resolution dated February 22, 2001, and decided to acquire the lands of village Sai Devaliya for Veradi-2 Irrigation Scheme by offering compensation to the claimants at the rates suggested by the high level committee. A copy of the said Resolution is produced by the petitioner at second Annexure-A to the petition. As the lands of village Sai Devaliya were likely to be needed for public purpose of Veradi-2 Irrigation Scheme, the Government issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the official gazette on August 19, 2002. The claimants, including the petitioner in the instant petition, were satisfied with the rates of compensation suggested by the high level committee in its meeting dated December 13, 2000, as approved by the State Government vide its Resolution dated February 22, 2001, and therefore, they agreed in writing before the Collector to render consent awards in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act on the basis of recommendation of the high level committee dated December 13, 2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was satisfied that the persons interested in the land who had appeared before him had agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award to be rendered under Section 11(2) of the Act and therefore, without making any further inquiry, made a consent award in the case of the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the Act on August 2, 2004. A copy of the said award is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-B to the petition. By making the said award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3,187=50 ps. per Are for irrigated lands and Rs. 2,125/- per Are for non-irrigated lands as indicated in the recommendations of the high level committee dated December 13, 2000. This is quite evident if one peruses the consent award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-B to the petition. However, after filing of the award in Collector's office as required by Section 12 of the Act, the the Additional Collector, Rajkot, made a proposal for cancellation of the consent award by his letter dated September 20, 2004, on the ground that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had accepted recommendations of the high level committee though the committee had ceased to function because the committee was constituted on February 10, 1999, and the tenure of the said committee was only for a period of three years. The proposal made by the Additional Collector, Rajkot, was considered by the Revenue Department in consultation with Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department. After such consultation, it was decided to cancel the consent award dated August 2, 2005, rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(2) of the Act in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/02, on the ground that while passing the consent award, the recommendations made by the committee which was not functional at the relevant point of time could not have been taken into consideration. The record further shows that a decision was taken at the secretariat level of Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department on May 2, 2005, pursuant to which the Special Land Acquisition Officer was informed by communication dated May 4, 2005, that he should treat his consent award as void ab-initio and should pass regular award under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer treated his consent award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act on August 2, 2004, as void ab-initio and proceeded to make his award under Section 11(1) of the Act. The record shows that regular award under Section 11(1) of the Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on May 4, 2005, by which he offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 322/- per sq.mt. The case of the petitioner is that once consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act is made, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction or authority to cancel the same and make another award under Section 11(1) of the Act. What is claimed by the petitioner is that the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat, which has no function to perform under Section 11 of the Act, could not have directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to treat his award made under Section 11(2) of the Act as null and void nor could have directed him to make regular award under Section 11(1) of the Act, and therefore, regular award made on illegal directions given by the Revenue Department is liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner, on the basis of recommendation dated December 13, 2000, made by the high level committee, as approved by the State Government vide its Resolution dated February 22, 2001, several consent awards were made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(2) of the Act with reference to the lands of village Sai Devaliya which were acquired for Veradi-2 Irrigation Scheme but those awards were neither treated as null and void nor cancelled and therefore, the petitioner could not have been discriminated in the matter of payment of compensation to him by making regular award under Section 11(1) of the Act. What is maintained by the petitioner is that making of second award relating to the same piece of land acquired is not contemplated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act at all and therefore, regular award made under Section 11(1) of the Act should be set aside. It is asserted that the Resolution dated February 22, 2001, approving the recommendations is not cancelled and/or revoked and therefore, the consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act made in the case could not have been treated as void nor second award under Section 11(1) of the Act could have been made. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.

(3.) On service of notice, Mr. K.D. Upadhyay, Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1 controverting the averments made in the petition. In the reply, it is stated that the Additional Collector, Rajkot, had made a proposal for cancellation of the consent award rendered in the instant case by his letter dated September 30, 2004, on the ground that the consent award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the rates recommended by the committee, which was constituted by the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department, after the committee had ceased to function and therefore, decision was taken at the secretariat level of the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department on May 2, 2005, to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to treat his award under Section 11(2) of the Act as null and void and to proceed to pass regular award under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act. What is mentioned in the reply is that the amount of compensation determined by award dated May 4, 2005, passed under Section 11(1) of the Act is just and therefore, reliefs claimed in the petition should not be granted.